Vinyl to Digital Transfer- The rakeford method

[rakeford]

I completed my first Vinyl to Digital Transfer today. For my first vinyl to wav to CD transfer, I picked Emerson, Lake & Palmer (Cotillion SD 9040), an LP that’s been in storage for 13 years.

For vinyl LP recording, I use a Dell Optiplex GX400 running Win2K with the OEM sound card. Audacity 1.3 Beta creates a wav file on the hard drive. Then Winamp 5.572 burns the wav file to CD-R.

Now I can play the wav file on my PC/ Winamp music server or the CD-R on any CD-R compatible CD player. The wav files on the hard drive is about 838 MiB for about 41:22 min:sec of music. The CD-R works in my Sharp DX-650 CP player.

I’m not sure I can tell the difference between the vinyl, the wav file, or the CD. I suspect I have some more tweaking to do. Such as setting the Input Volume (in Audacity) to avoid clipping.

A summary of the audio signal path follows.

1. The Phillips GA312/ Stanton 681 EEE (turntable/ cartridge) with OEM RCA phono cables inputs to the phono input of the Yamaha RX-797 (receiver). The Yamaha RX-797 is set to PURE DIRECT mode.

2. From the RX-797 MD/TAPE OUT, a 6 feet RadioShack audio y-cable (dual RCA phono male to 1/8” stereo male, gold plated) sends the analog signal to the LINE IN of the OEM sound card (Analog Devices Inc., model SoundMAX Integrated Digital Audio) in the Dell Optiplex GX400.

3. The software used is Audacity 1.3 Beta set to record at 88.2 KHz, 32-bit float. Other settings are Rate Converter: High Quality Sinc Interpolation; Dither: Shaped.

4. Then, Winamp 5.572 burns the wav file to CD-R on a MAD DOG 16XDVD9A4 DVD/CD reader/writer installed in the Dell Optiplex GX400.


Vinyl to digital path
_____________________________Analog_______________ _____________
Phillips GA312/ Stanton 681 EEE/ = OEM RCA analog cables =>> |
Yamaha RX-797 receiver --------------------------PHONO IN << |
Yamaha RX-797 receiver ----------------------MD/ TAPE OUT >> |
SoundMAX LINE IN <<=1/8”stereo === 6ft === RCA phono =<< |
_____________________________Digital______________ _____________
Dell Optiplex GX400 (Windows 2000)
Analog Devices Inc./SoundMAX Integrated Digital Audio << LINE IN
Audacity 1.3 Beta -> Internal hard drive
| | Rate: 88200 Hz; Format: 32-bit float;
| | Rate Converter: High Quality Sinc Interpolation;
| | Dither: Shaped
Winamp 5.572 / CD burn ->
MAD DOG 16XDVD9A4 DVD/CD reader/writer -> CD-R blank
<O:p
</O:p

References
[1] best Vinyl to Digital tranfer (http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3295509#post3295509)
<O:p</O:p
[2] http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=270075
post #31 by rkay5 on 20091222 1128
<O:p</O:p

[02audionoob]

You could save hard drive space by converting your WAV file to FLAC.

[poppachubby]

Seems fine. I think you should opt for MP3 320kps. Storage will be an issue with the wav. Also, did you make a cue sheet for the CD? wav files made from Audacity burn as one big long file. Not my cup of tea.

Either way, good show. It sounds good and that's the important thing. If you plan to convert alot of vinyl with your laptop, I would consider buying a Pro-Ject Phono Box II. This gets rid of alot of messy cords and devices, and cleans your chain up. The fidelity is second to none of course as the Phono Box not only levels the input, it also has a convertor.



Phillips GA 312 > Pro-Ject Phono Box II > Dell Optiplex > Rakeford Backflip

[02audionoob]

Your ADI SoundMax sound controller in the computer seems like the weak link to me. No matter how high the sample rate is in Audacity, it seems like using the SoundMax to convert the analog to digital would never even be better than 48k. I'm no digital guru, so I could be wrong.

[rakeford]

Your ADI SoundMax sound controller in the computer seems like the weak link to me. No matter how high the sample rate is in Audacity, it seems like using the SoundMax to convert the analog to digital would never even be better than 48k. I'm no digital guru, so I could be wrong.
Your probably right. The Dell website says the GX400 OEM audio is Analog Devices AD1885 Integrated Audio. The Analog Devices website says it has, "Full Duplex Variable Sample Rates from 7040 Hz to 48 kHz with 1 Hz Resolution". I peeked in the PC box, but the audio card is hidden behind the fan. I can't see the model number without taking things apart.

Right now I'm in R&D mode. The PC is about 7-9 years old. It's what I have on hand to build a music server. I'll likely acquire a new sound card or external A/D converter such as the the M-Audio Transit (http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/Transit.html).


Seems fine. I think you should opt for MP3 320kps. Storage will be an issue with the wav. Also, did you make a cue sheet for the CD? wav files made from Audacity burn as one big long file. Not my cup of tea.

Either way, good show. It sounds good and that's the important thing. If you plan to convert alot of vinyl with your laptop, I would consider buying a Pro-Ject Phono Box II. This gets rid of alot of messy cords and devices, and cleans your chain up. The fidelity is second to none of course as the Phono Box not only levels the input, it also has a convertor.



Phillips GA 312 > Pro-Ject Phono Box II > Dell Optiplex > Rakeford Backflip
I'll be getting two to four hard drives (1 to 2 TeraBytes each). I'm not concerned about the size of wav files.

It seems that the phono preamp in my Yamaha RX-797 is better than most external preamps I've seen. I don't see a need for an external preamp. I may start a seperate thread to hammer that out.

Thanks for your support.

[02audionoob]

...Right now I'm in R&D mode. The PC is about 7-9 years old. It's what I have on hand to build a music server. I'll likely acquire a new sound card or external A/D converter such as the the M-Audio Transit (http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/Transit.html).

We've recommended that one around here, upon occasion. The upside to the Transit in your case is obviously the 24/96 capability. The SoundBlaster Live! USB can also do that, assuming you could lay your hands on one. Another 24/96 option is M-Audio's internal PCI sound card. Those seem to be very readily available.

[rakeford]

I ripped 2 more hunks of vinyl this weekend.

Chicago Transit Authority (1968), Side 1
Introduction
Does anybody really know what time it is?
Beginnings

Chicago Transit Authority (1968), Side 2
Questions 67 and 68
Listen
Poem

Chicago Transit Authority (1968), Side 3
Free form guitar
South California Purples
I'm a man

Chicago Transit Authority (1968), Side 4
Prologue
Someday
Liberation

I'm using the same procedure as in my OP. It sounds really good coming from the PC music server (Winamp). Now I can annoy my housemate for 80 minutes of Chicago TA without budging.

But, maybe its time for tweeking.

PS1: Guitar :4: , horns, woodwind, piano, drums, and incredible singing on CTA.
:23:

PS2: "Free form guitar" might make a good track for headphone burn in. :crazy:

[rakeford]

... on my $9.98 * PC music server. All four sides. It sounds fantastic. We got Peter Cetera on bass and vocals (LISTEN- Side 2).

This is music I haven't heard since I mothballed my Philips GA312 13 years ago. Now I can play it all night long at the flick of mouse. :D

* Had to buy another RCA phono to 1/8" stereo patch cord at Rat Shack.

PS: Snap, Crackle, & Pop sound exceptionally faithful through the 88.2 KHz, 24 bit wav file.

:16:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cf/CTA.jpg

[mlsstl]

One other advantage to ripping your LPs to digital is it's a wonderful way to get reacquainted with your music collection. I've spent the last 7 or 8 years converting my LPs and open reels to digital and am well past the 2,000 album mark. I've rediscovered stuff that I'd completely forgotten about.

One of the interesting results is it has given me a different perspective than most on the debates between the analog aficionados and digital fans. I've got my procedures down well enough that I can't really tell the difference between the original LP and the digital copy. In fact, if I take advantage of the opportunity to remove the more onerous clicks and pops, the digital is preferable just for that one reason.

Much of what people describe as a difference between the two formats is, in my book, more of a change in the fads and fashions of mixing and mastering styles over the years. A 70s LP burned to CD still sounds like a 70s LP mix. A bassy, punchy, in-your-face CD mix from the past couple of years is not going to change if they put it unmodified on a piece of vinyl.

Anyway, enjoy your project. It's a lot of fun. Here's one I did a few weeks ago.

<img src="http://www.rzootoo.com/albums/lightnin_strikes.jpg">

[Auricauricle]

As Poppa put it: "Seems fine. I think you should opt for MP3 320kps. Storage will be an issue with the wav. Also, did you make a cue sheet for the CD? wav files made from Audacity burn as one big long file. Not my cup of tea."

Nice thing about Audacity is the ability to cut and paste the recording as you please....

I've been going through the same process, trying to archive my recordings digitally for a little more order in the chaos. At present, I'm playing with a 128 GB Thumb-drive to do so. Like y'all, it's been real fun. At the same time, I find the occasional clunker that makes me think, "How in the world did you get in there?"

[rakeford]

As Poppa put it: "Seems fine. I think you should opt for MP3 320kps. Storage will be an issue with the wav. Also, did you make a cue sheet for the CD? wav files made from Audacity burn as one big long file. Not my cup of tea."

Nice thing about Audacity is the ability to cut and paste the recording as you please....

I've been going through the same process, trying to archive my recordings digitally for a little more order in the chaos. At present, I'm playing with a 128 GB Thumb-drive to do so. Like y'all, it's been real fun. At the same time, I find the occasional clunker that makes me think, "How in the world did you get in there?"
Thanks for the feedback. I'm still trying to optimize the analog to digital conversion (ADC). It's not clear that I'm actually getting 88.2 KHz, 24 bit. I'm in the process of specifying an ADC for my system. There are a lot of choices to make. I need to figure out what I want to do and how I want to do it.

I plan on getting TB harddrives. With about 40 minutes per LP, at 88.2 KHz & 24 bit, that's about 1181 LPs per TB.

When that gets full, I'll buy an EB harddrive for $100 and go from there [1] .

[1] EB = 1 exabyte = 1000,000,000,000,000,000 Bytes.

[rakeford]

One other advantage to ripping your LPs to digital is it's a wonderful way to get reacquainted with your music collection. I've spent the last 7 or 8 years converting my LPs and open reels to digital and am well past the 2,000 album mark. I've rediscovered stuff that I'd completely forgotten about.
......................


Especially when your listening to your old stuff on a major upgrade of audio gear (see signature).

Thanks for the encouragement.

[poppachubby]

[1] EB = 1 exabyte = 1000,000,000,000,000,000 Bytes.

So let me get this straight, 1 EB = a gazillion bytes.

[rakeford]

So let me get this straight, 1 EB = a gazillion bytes.
Acually no, an EB = 1 exabyte = 1000^6 Bytes = 1000,000,000,000,000,000 Bytes is a real bona fide technical term, see Wiki [1]. Think of it as a million TeraBytes (TB) or a billion GigaBytes (GB).

A gazillion is often used as fictitious names for an unspecified, large number by analogy to names of large numbers, see Wiki quotes below.

But, you probably already knew this! :D

"The English language has a number of words for indefinite and fictitious numbers — inexact terms of indefinite size, used for comic effect, for exaggeration, as placeholder names (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placeholder_name), or when precision is unnecessary or undesirable." [2]

"-illion
Words ending in the sound "-illion", such as zillion,<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-a_2-0>[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazillion#cite_note-a-2)</SUP> jillion,<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-3>[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazillion#cite_note-3)</SUP> and gazillion,<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-4>[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazillion#cite_note-4)</SUP> are often used as fictitious names for an unspecified, large number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number) by analogy to names of large numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_numbers) such as million, billion and trillion. Their size is dependent upon the context, but can typically be considered large enough to be unfathomable." [2]
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exabyte
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazillion

[nightflier]

I tried ripping vinyl a few times and did it this way:

I recorded the LP straight into a Tascam CD recorder onto CD-RW, then took that to the computer for editing with Sony software. I had a deal with Sony to use their whole software catalog for free, so that's what I used. I would have used anything else, but this was handy. The Sony tools were pretty impressive and helped clean up the files considerably, but they also dulled them compared to the original LP. So they were cleaner, but less exciting.

Anyhow, I then burned the WAV files back to CD-R and kept copies of the originals (the cleaned up files). The WAV files are huge and don't really sound as good as the LPs, so I hardly ever listen to them. The CD-Rs I use in the car and occasionally on other systems around the house, but I can always hear that the LP sounds better.

My reason for doing this was that I always have this nagging feeling that each time I play a record I'm shaving a little bit off the life of the record (literally, by wearing down the grooves). And I also feel like I'm going through cartridges pretty fast, so when I don't need the higher fidelity, I pop in the CD.

Cartridges are replaceable (and I never tire of trying new and better ones), but records, like the out-of-print and import stuff, is extremely hard to find again or ends up costing far more than my originals. Add to that the problem that sometimes re-issues are also "re-engineered" and the old records quickly become unique. There are tons of used records, of course, but short of bringing my whole system to the store with me, I never really know what I end up with. Even a record that seemingly has no scratches, could be severely worn from repeated playing (if it's a rare & good one, that's even more likely).

I thought that CD recording would address these issues, but frankly I hardly ever choose the CD-Rs off the shelf, always opting for listening to the records first and if not, selecting an actual commercial CD. Maybe it's just psychological, but perhaps it's also my subconscious hearing telling me that it would rather hear the better sounding stuff. I suppose I could have kept an original (not cleaned up) WAV file as well, but then I'm also duplicating my storage need. Considering how many LPs I have, that would be overkill.

[02audionoob]

I think in all the time I've had a decent turntable I've never worn out a record. I've accidentally scratched a few, over the years, but I say they're made to be played. I just play them. I can make very good digital recordings, though. It's usually a little difficult for me to tell the difference between the LP and CD-R.

[rakeford]

I tried ripping vinyl a few times and did it this way:

I recorded the LP straight into a Tascam CD recorder onto CD-RW, then took that to the computer for editing with Sony software.
..................
I thought that CD recording would address these issues, but frankly I hardly ever choose the CD-Rs off the shelf, always opting for listening to the records first and if not, selecting an actual commercial CD. Maybe it's just psychological, but perhaps it's also my subconscious hearing telling me that it would rather hear the better sounding stuff. I suppose I could have kept an original (not cleaned up) WAV file as well, but then I'm also duplicating my storage need. Considering how many LPs I have, that would be overkill.
Thank you for your response. I considered a similar route.

The problem with a CD recorder is restrictions to Redbook CD and/or other limitations, such as needing to pay extra for the blank "MUSIC" CD-R, which are identical to the cheaper "DATA" CD-R except without the "Music industry protection".

With Audacity (or simular software) and the right soundcard (internal or external), you can control everything- sample rate, bit level, analog filters, digital filters. And you can tranfer the method to many, many different (PC) machines and improve the system as PC hardware/ software advances. It's much more versatile. The tradeoff is there's more to learn and understand to get it right.

And you can do it cheap. I can buy a $100 external sound card (e.g., M-Audio Transit) and get exceptional vinyl to digital rips.

Also, my intention is to make a Music server where I can easily acess all my music. Making CD of select vinyl is a secondary desire. With the Audacity/ PC harddrive, I don't have to bother with the time, effort, and expense of CD-Rs, unless I want to.

[mlsstl]

nightflier, I'm a little confused why you "clean up" the digital files if you find it dulls the sound. A couple of thoughts on that issue.

First, if the LP is your preferred method of playback (where all the clicks & pops are present) why not just leave the digital file unprocessed with all the analog quirks present?

Second, in the 2,000 plus LPs I've converted, I've never found the digital editing tools for noise removal dull the sound. However, I do use different software (Adobe Audition) than you. I also have the option to manually remove only the biggest clicks and leave the rest of the file untouched. I just measured a typical click on a record and the duration of this click was nine ten-thousandths (0.0009) of a second. If you take 3 or 4 clicks out of a 4 minute song, you've gotten rid of the clicks and the other 3 minutes and 59.996 seconds of the song are unaltered (I actually did the math to get the number.)

If you've got a pretty clean LP, there is no big reason to digitally process the whole thing for noise removal.

While I understand those who like to physically handle the LP or CD cover, look at the photos or art and read any commentary that came with the album, I've become really attached to the flexibility of my music server in terms of accessing my library.

I've got no complaints about the sound quality. I find the variability in studio recording techniques and production choices several orders of magnitude greater than any difference between the sound quality inherent to the different storage formats.

I've been collecting music since my teenage years in the mid 1960s and have no urge to go back to the old ways. However, that is one of the neat things about this hobby - there are good options for everybody regardless of their preferences.

[02audionoob]

Thank you for your response. I considered a similar route.

The problem with a CD recorder is restrictions to Redbook CD and/or other limitations, such as needing to pay extra for the blank "MUSIC" CD-R, which are identical to the cheaper "DATA" CD-R except without the "Music industry protection".

With Audacity (or simular software) and the right soundcard (internal or external), you can control everything- sample rate, bit level, analog filters, digital filters. And you can tranfer the method to many, many different (PC) machines and improve the system as PC hardware/ software advances. It's much more versatile. The tradeoff is there's more to learn and understand to get it right.

And you can do it cheap. I can buy a $100 external sound card (e.g., M-Audio Transit) and get exceptional vinyl to digital rips.

Also, my intention is to make a Music server where I can easily acess all my music. Making CD of select vinyl is a secondary desire. With the Audacity/ PC harddrive, I don't have to bother with the time, effort, and expense of CD-Rs, unless I want to.

Redbook is as good as the resolution you're going to be able to get through your SoundMax audio controller and the CD recorder will likely provide a better analog-to-digital conversion. Have you heard a CD produced by a CD recorder? I have one and, besides being more convenient, its sound quality is superior to the files I make on the computer...and I can make some very good files. If you want to hear one, PM me and I'll send you one.

[poppachubby]

I will attest to the noob's file making prowess. I still regularily spin Wayne Shorter's - Adam's Apple, a rip that noob may have trouble duplicating. Superb dynamics combined with an extremely musical sound.

That Shorter may have been your finest moment noob, if they could all be that way...

[nightflier]

nightflier, I'm a little confused why you "clean up" the digital files if you find it dulls the sound. A couple of thoughts on that issue. First, if the LP is your preferred method of playback (where all the clicks & pops are present) why not just leave the digital file unprocessed with all the analog quirks present?

LOL, you would think I would have done that. And yes, I certainly should have. If I do it again, I'll keep the original file. I was just going by the assumption that the software would only improve the file.

Granted, the difference isn't noticeable on a your average backyard boombox, but when I play it on my main system I can clearly hear the differences. So for general use (mostly by the rest of the family and in the car, kitchen, garage), it's acceptable, sort of like people are OK using MP3s on their iPod when they work out. The problem is that I seldom listen to music as background ambiance. My listening is typically active so that also makes me a nit-picker and I have a hard time putting up with things I know can sound better.


Second, in the 2,000 plus LPs I've converted, I've never found the digital editing tools for noise removal dull the sound. However, I do use different software (Adobe Audition) than you. I also have the option to manually remove only the biggest clicks and leave the rest of the file untouched. I just measured a typical click on a record and the duration of this click was nine ten-thousandths (0.0009) of a second. If you take 3 or 4 clicks out of a 4 minute song, you've gotten rid of the clicks and the other 3 minutes and 59.996 seconds of the song are unaltered (I actually did the math to get the number.)

I must confess that I didn't get that detailed into the software and just let the filters fix things automatically. I'm sure if I spent the time I could do a better job and use less aggressive settings that would ultimately sound better.


If you've got a pretty clean LP, there is no big reason to digitally process the whole thing for noise removal.

Not all my LPs are in the best of shape. I wasn't always as careful with my records and when I was younger they were lent out, played over & over, and saw their share or "party abuse." Some of my old Rock n Roll (Zep, Stones, Frampton, etc.), as well as a lot of stuff I bought second hand like my precious Blue Note stuff are hardly playable on my main system. A pity really since many of them are originals, some signed - I remember waiting in line at the record stores to buy some of them.

On the question of wear, I've inherited quite a bit of classical from uncles and family. For example, I have the first DG recording of the complete Beethoven works. Several of the records are virtually scratchless, but the groove-wear is actually quite audible. I had an expert look at these some years ago because I was wondering why they sounded so bad and he confirmed it. So yes, records do wear out as well. This is why digitizing them is important, especially since they don't always need to be played in the best system in the house or listened to critically.


While I understand those who like to physically handle the LP or CD cover, look at the photos or art and read any commentary that came with the album, I've become really attached to the flexibility of my music server in terms of accessing my library.

Exactly my issue. Even when I use Lightscribe CDs, print out liner notes and artwork on light card stock, and trim them to fit right into the CD case, it still feels like a copy to me. Besides, the amount of work that goes into doing this properly isn't easy or quick and gets tiring pretty quickly.

Storing them as digital files is even worse since I just can't get a handle on what I do have on disk. I probably have 50 or more full length albums on disk and I seldom listen to them. I'm not ready to spend the money on a Sooloos system or something similar, but that is really the only type of interface I could see that could bridge that gap. Even then I still would have a hard time getting used to it.

The problem is that digital files are really best for people listening to individual songs, shuffle playing, and more often than not, people who listen to music in the background. For those who actively listen to full albums (as the artists often intended - yes, even in Rock: think Rush, Yes, Floyd, etc.) this doesn't work so well. The appeal of little files stripped of their artwork, liner notes, and the rest of the songs/pieces they should be accompanied with, is lost on me.


I've got no complaints about the sound quality. I find the variability in studio recording techniques and production choices several orders of magnitude greater than any difference between the sound quality inherent to the different storage formats.

No doubt, but those recording/production differences are even more pronounced if the music is well transferred. Take hall ambience for example, which is often diminished with digitized and compressed files. Some listeners might actually welcome the reduction as superfluous baggage on the music. But if you've been in that venue (Amsterdam Concertgebow, Boston Symphony Hall, Walt Disney Concert Hall, Mozarteum, Suntory, Carnegie, etc.), that ambiance can take you back there and adds to the emotional impact of the piece. Even if I'm only going on someone else's description of this in the liner notes or a review, this is often what the artists and engineers intended. This is even more pronounced with smaller venues where quartets, piano recitals, and jazz/vocal ensembles tend to be recorded.


I've been collecting music since my teenage years in the mid 1960s and have no urge to go back to the old ways. However, that is one of the neat things about this hobby - there are good options for everybody regardless of their preferences.

Well if you've digitized everything, feel free to send me the originals. I'll give them a good home, LOL.

[rakeford]

All- Thanks for your feedback and discussion. It's very helpful.

My first order of attack is getting a decent ADC. There are so many ways to do this and choices to make; it may take me awhile to hammer out the final path.

Choices
1. External ADC and optical feeds to PC.
2. Internal ADC in PC.
3. Audio digital recorder- can be very expensive up to $1300.

I also have some limitations with the available PC I have. Upgrading components and/or software might be more expensive than buying a whole new machine.

I have to consider all my needs and wants holistically.

[02audionoob]

This method cost me about $30, the price of a SoundBlaster Live! USB on eBay...

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4067/4418448242_eff7e05d88_m.jpg

[rakeford]

This method cost me about $30, the price of a SoundBlaster Live! USB on eBay...

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4067/4418448242_eff7e05d88_m.jpg
Hey great! Thanks for the response.

So, does the USB Sound Blaster serves as both 1) the ADC from TT to PC and 2) the DAC from PC to receiver?

If so, the USB handles both 1) digital audio into the PC and 2) digital audio out of the PC. Right?

One of my PC limitation may be USB 1.1. I tried to find out whether I have USB 1.1 or 2.0, but I could not figure it out from the Windows Device Manager.

Anybody know of way to determine the USB version in a PC?

[02audionoob]

Go into Device Manager and check to see if any of your Universal Serial Bus controllers are listed as "enhanced". If so, that's USB 2.0.

And yes...In my setup, the sound goes into and out of the PC through the USB port. The SoundBlaster converts the PC digital to analog and the receiver analog to digital. I can record and play back music using the PC like a tape deck.

[mlsstl]

Storing them as digital files is even worse since I just can't get a handle on what I do have on disk. I probably have 50 or more full length albums on disk and I seldom listen to them. I'm not ready to spend the money on a Sooloos system or something similar, but that is really the only type of interface I could see that could bridge that gap. Even then I still would have a hard time getting used to it.

Here's where I'd strongly disagree.

I use the Squeezebox system. I have a SB3 ("Classic") that runs to a Lavry DA-10 DAC into my main system. It is the only music source I have on the system. I also have a second system that uses the Duet receiver.

The basic Squeezebox player is not all that expensive (by audiophile standards it is downright inexpensive) and it is easy to upgrade with an external DAC (which some may already own.) They even have the fancier "Transporter" model for those who want to go that route.

I have absolutely incredible and unparalleled access to my music. I have in excess of 45,000 songs on the system. For example, if I want to find how many versions of the classic tune "One For My Baby" I have, it took 2 seconds to search the database. (I have 8 versions by various artists.) I can then select the one I want (or all) and play them instantly.

It is particularly handy for locating songs on compilation albums that may include a variety of artists.

I can find songs and albums by artist, genre, year, song or album title and so on.

It has really improved my access to my collection in ways that were downright impossible in the old days. I think it is great, but then again, with audio, YMMV.

[rakeford]

Go into Device Manager and check to see if any of your Universal Serial Bus controllers are listed as "enhanced". If so, that's USB 2.0.

And yes...In my setup, the sound goes into and out of the PC through the USB port. The SoundBlaster converts the PC digital to analog and the receiver analog to digital. I can record and play back music using the PC like a tape deck.
Thanks.

Device Manager says:
-Universal Serial Bus controllers
.... Standard Universal PCI to USB Host Controller
.... Standard Universal PCI to USB Host Controller
.... USB Root Hub
.... USB Root Hub

Thus, I must have USB 1.1.

Your setup is more or less what I'm trying to do. But I'm comtemplating using optical digital audio between the PC and the ADC & DAC.

How long can you run your USB cable? I'd like to get about 20 to 30 feet between the PC and the ADC/DAC.

[02audionoob]

How long can you run your USB cable? I'd like to get about 20 to 30 feet between the PC and the ADC/DAC.

By the USB spec, the maximum length of wire is 5 meters between devices. However, you can put a USB hub between two 5-meter wires and you'd have 10 meters. Use two hubs and three cables and you'd have 15 meters. There are also USB cables that have the device built-in, so it's 10 meters with a little repeater box in the middle of the cable.