[Sinarca]

Hi to everybody
 
This is my first rip from vinyl: is it ok technically speaking ?

 

[icebear]

How does the music sound, do you like it as much as the playing original vinyl?
That's the only question you need to answer ... yourself

.

 

[Sinarca]

Yes, it's very similar, perhaps the high frequencies are a little attenuate.
But this is all. At least for my (not) golden ears

 

[GRUMPYOLDGUY]

I can't view the attachment... but without having the master to compare to, how can we tell?
 
You need something to compare to in order to compare it.
 
Unless you are saying you EQed and want input on that... but then we'd need to separate it by channel (i.e. per instrument, voice, etc) and see the spectral waterfall for that to know if anything is stepping on each other.

 

[pinnahertz]

I couldn't see the attachment either, but if I could I have little doubt that it would look like a spectrogram.  Probably very colorful.  Lots of wavy lines.  Kind of like modern art for the graphically challenged. 

 

[spruce music]

 
 
Hard to say very much.  Looks okay.  Also I assume it is actually a waveform combined with spectrogram view.  You have frequencies from somewhere down to or below 100 hz and they drop out a bit over 20 khz.  So reasonably normal looking I would say.
 
 

 

[pinnahertz]

Ok, hang on.  I was being facetious before, so let me come right out and say it clearly this time:
 
You can't evaluate anything qualitatively from a single waveform OR spectrogram.  
 
The reason why is simple: There's no reference to compare to, and so there's no knowing what "good" or "bad" would look like.  Even if we had a reference of a somehow pure file, these things don't tell you anything qualitatively, the may (if you stare it it really hard) show up some sort of difference, a delta if you will, between two different samples.  
 
But qualitative evaluation is not their purpose.  A waveform shows you the envelope, a moment-to-moment graph of intensity vs time.  The spectrogram shows you spectral distribution and intensity (sort of) in a rather difficult to comprehend representation.  But again, neither will show anything qualitatively since nobody has any idea of what it should look like in the first place.  
 
If you want a qualitative evaluation of something you've recorded, perhaps an actual clip would stimulate more valuable response.  We can feed it into the most sophisticated qualitative evaluation system ever devised: the ear-brain system.  

 

[drtechno]

go a little bit lighter on the tracking force. see if it will help with the waveform's symmetry.

 

[pinnahertz]

  go a little bit lighter on the tracking force. see if it will help with the waveform's symmetry.

Tracking force has no effect on waveform symmetry.  

 

[drtechno]

maybe I'm just seeing groove wear.
 
granted I'm not used to seeing record groove signals.

 

[pinnahertz]

  maybe I'm just seeing groove wear.
 
granted I'm not used to seeing record groove signals.

You can't "see" record groove wear in a display like that.

 

[drtechno]

no, not grooves per say, but needle deflection or lack there of.

 

[pinnahertz]

  no, not grooves per say, but needle deflection or lack there of.

Nope, not that either.  You can't determine any of that from a spectrogram or waveform without using a test record as the source.  

 

[drtechno]

I like the block feature. Its good to ignore people who claim they are experts and jump on people that give out outside info the first day the sign in. Those people need to get a life.