Transferring music from a 78 record player to my PC

[bruce]

Well if it's a synchronous motor, it'll run 20% faster, so your A440 becomes 528, which is just above c but below c-sharp...

 

According to the OP its 60hz kit running at 50hz, therefore 16.6667% slower whatever that is in musical terms :P

 

Oops - my mistake - That takes your concert A to near enough the Fsharp below...

[DavidLee]

I only ask because concert pitch (A=440) has changed over the years anyway, and is still as I understand it not universally adhered to ... I believe I read somewhere that Russian "A" is different to western Europe's A - or is this an urban myth type thing?

No, it's not a myth. "Concert pitch", with A=440Hz is the internationally agreed standard (1939) but is not universal. Whilst A=440 is the norm in the UK and US, elsewhere pitch has continued to rise and A=442 Hz is common in continental Europe with A=445 in Germany and Austria. Early music ensembles tend to play at a more authentic lower pitch and A=415Hz is commonly accepted amongst Baroque ensembles.

 

However orchestral pitch is always referred to a single "A" given by the principal oboe and so can and will vary from concert to concert.

 

David

[niall]

there's quite a lot on wiki about concert pitch, if you're that interested!

[paulears]

All this accuracy talk on pitch does rather assume that the original recording was made at exactly 78rpm - and very few were. In fact most LPs from the 70's can be quite 'off'. Accuracy of pitch is a modern phenomena only considered important by purists in the analogue days, and kind of ok by default once people went digital.

[jamesperrett]

All this accuracy talk on pitch does rather assume that the original recording was made at exactly 78rpm - and very few were. In fact most LPs from the 70's can be quite 'off'. Accuracy of pitch is a modern phenomena only considered important by purists in the analogue days, and kind of ok by default once people went digital.

 

I'd agree with the comments about 78's although I believe that the speed differences were deliberate rather than sloppiness on the part of the recording engineer. Columbia records are marked as having a speed of 80rpm while I know that other manufacturers used different speeds. Possibly this was a way of getting around patents in the early days as I know that the patents around disc reproduction were vigorously guarded by their owners in the early days. All the wind-up gramophones that I've seen have speed controls to cope with these variations.

 

I'm surprised by the comments about LP's from the 70's though as this was the time when far more people were into quality sound reproduction than there are nowadays. I would be very surprised to find an album cut at the wrong speed that wasn't meant to be that way. I believe that certain labels deliberately cut their records at slower speeds in order to make them sound more exciting when played at the correct speed.

 

Cheers

 

James.

[tom_the_LD]

Hi, thought I would give an update on the situation!

 

I am currently 1/4 of the way through the 78's. This is what I did.

 

Where the two wires join the speakers, I soldered the shield and hot of a mic cable (so in effect I was taking the feed off the speaker, if not then straight out the little amp inside, if not both!). On the other end of this mic cable was a male XLR going into an ACTIVE DI (Behringher Ultra DI100) with -20db attenuation. Then I went into a Yamaha MG16/4 mixer then out the group 1-2 on the mixer into my computer and out the stereo out on the mixer to a set of speakers.

 

The volume on the record player is relatively low, all faders are around the 0 mark and about 1/3 gain.

 

I record into reaper, save it as a wav, import the wav into audacity, do noise removal to get rid of stylus and other noises then export as a wav into a folder awaiting burning to a CD one I am finished.

 

It is all going well so far :)

[Ben Langfeld]

Sounds good. Glad you've got it working! Just one thing I'm interested in though. Why is it that you're recording to reaper and then editing in audacity? Why not just record straight into audacity?

[tom_the_LD]

I prefer the recording 'interface' in reaper. In Audacity, it just shows the input at the top across a vertical or horizontal bar, whereas in reaper, the recording levels are more detailed. (Similar to on a mixer, it goes green, yellow then red if you are peaking). Plus it also tells you the current DB level in figures and shows the -12db easily.

 

Hope you understood that!!

[Ben Langfeld]

That makes sense, although if you set levels correctly you can just use hardware metering. Seems a lot of hassle. Glad to hear it's working for you though.

[tom_the_LD]

Maybe it is a little more hassle, although it appears to be working! :)