Best A-D box to rip vinyl

This one http://www.lynxstudio.com/product_detail.asp?i=11 is very popular for that purpose.

This is what you want. Price is reasonable too..

http://www.stereophile.com/ces2010/f...h_phono_stage/

I have been pleased with the rips made from vinyl using a Roland FA-66 FireWire interface. The nice thing about this device is that it includes RCA inputs, a rare feature in devices such as these. But even nicer is the reasonable price of the FA-66 if purchased on eBay. Is it the best? Heck no, not even close. But given the gear you mention, I doubt that you want to spend thousands on an A/D.

The FA-66 can record at 24/192. I think it does a better job at 24/96, as the higher sample rate may be too much for it. Also while you can power this from the firewire bus, I had better results with the external power adapter.

Get the EMU 1616M. $349 and uses the AK5394A for the A/D conversion.

It also isn't limited to 24/96 like the furutech, You can do full blown 24/192.

And on the Lynx I didn't see a RIAA equalized input. If it doesn't have this it can't natively take turn table input.

Input spec on the 1616M (from Creatives Website):

Mastering grade 24-bit/192kHz converters - the same A/D converters used in Digidesign's flagship ProTools HD 192 I/O Interface delivering an amazing 120dB signal-to-noise ratio

Type: servo-balanced, DC-coupled, low-noise input circuitry
A/D converter: AK5394A
Level (software selectable):

- Professional: +4dBu nominal, 20dBu max (balanced)
- Consumer: -10dBV nominal, 6dBV max (unbalanced)
Frequency Response (20Hz-20kHz): +0.0/-.03dB
Dynamic Range (1kHz, A-weighted): 120dB
Signal-to-Noise Ratio (A-weighted): 120dB
THD+N (1kHz at -1dBFS): -110dB (.0003%)
Stereo Crosstalk (1kHz at -1dBFS): < -120dB Analog
line Outputs (6)

You will be hard pressed to do better and the price is right.

Emu is not bad either, but it doesn't have phono input too. I expect that OP have phono preamp for regular listening already. And he asked for "audiophile" level interface. Lynx cards are often used by audiophiles as a gold standard in A/D conversion.

The Music Hall USB-1 turntable is a perfect solution to this need for many people.

It has a decent Audio-Technica cartridge, a built-in USB converter, and all you have to do is connect it to your computer with a USB cable and rip away.

It is $249.

It also has a built-in phono preamp, so you can connect it directly to any line-level input on any integrated amplifier or HT receiver, which lets you monitor on your sound system while you are ripping.

Pretty cool, huh? LOL

I re-read the EMU I/O listing and they don't make it crystal clear. But on re-read it sounds like you have to supply the pre-amp.

Is it a 24/96 or 24/192 device?

From the EMU manual (so I was correct):
RIAA equalized turntable preamp input allows you to connect a turntable without using an expensive external preamp.

You don't have to use it. You can use the output from your current pre-amp. BUT the nice thing with the EMU is you can at least give their pre-amp a shot and you aren't bit rate and sample limited to 24/96.

The EMU does have a phono preamp and the EMU is an audiophile card.

Here is one you may want to consider

http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/ProFire610.html

M-audio ProFire 610

That is a nice looking interface for $250-299...

I've been considering a PCM4222 from Ross Martin Audio.

If you are doing a bunch of A to D transfers, simplify your life and buy something like an Alesis Masterlink that works like a standard recorder. They're pretty easy to find within your budget and much easier to use. Has balanced and unbalanced in and out and records from 16/44 to 24/96. Then just burn it to a CD. So much easier and better quality than a computer. Then if you want the files in a computer, just pop in the CD and rip or edit.

So lets lay out the Alesis kit:

1. It's $799
2. The best resolution it can record at is 24/96
3. You have to incur the cost of CD's
4. You have to rip once from Vinyl to CD and then CD to computer
5. 'Better quality than the computer' is just misplaced

I will go out on a limb and state that 24/192 is inherently better in this process. I will go out on a limb and state the SQ when doing this on a computer is just as good and arguably better (due to resolution). I will go out on a limb and say the computer based setup is going to be easier, quicker, less expensive. All due the reason he won't be recording to CD and then ripping once again.

The OP will also have a state of the art sound device when all is said and done.

Please show me the white paper that proves that a computer sounds better than a Masterlink and also show where your double blind tests were published showing you can hear the difference between 96 and 192.

Hi Harry,

It's not necessarily an audibility issue.

I copy my vinyl to 24/192 simply for post-processing bandwidth. I like to do click&pop removal after digitizing an album, and the DSP algorithms perform better with the added data. Any post-processing can introduce distortion, and the added data helps to minimize it.

I agree that I cannot hear the difference between an unprocessed 96kHz recording and an unprocessed 192kHz recording. I'm not sure I would even be able to hear the difference after processing. I simply know that the post-processing is more accurate at the higher sample-rate, so I make the effort.

On the reciprocal: Show me where the Masterlink is better qaulity then the computer? It certainly isn't a labor saving device. It certainly isn't a consumables saving device.

I don't know if there is a difference. All I know is if I am going through the trouble and I had the ability I would even do 32/384.

Consumables, CDr's have become so cheap that's a non-issue and I'd argue the ease of use and backup of your raw recording makes it totally worth the meager expense.

Then you're saying you don't have the ability to do this and you don't think you can tell a difference. I've done extensive recording with many professional computer and consumer recording systems and with a Masterlink and made many albeit unscientific listening tests. But you must be right because you've thought about this. Thanks for your opinion.

The problem with computers is that their analog section is usually poor for audio. What they offer is a cost effective tool because most people already have one. Second, they have so many options and settings in both the software and the audio section of the OS that they make it easier to mess up a recording than to get it right. With a dedicated recorder like a Masterlink or a Tascam, just push record and you'll likely get it right.

That's sounds like a valid point. I didn't bother to mention that I'm about to swap my Masterlink for a Korg to record DSD because I don't think 96k is good enough either. But I don't believe in post processing. I tried it a few times and found it to be less than transparent. When recording from vinyl, my turntable is good enough that clicks and pops don't bother me and I choose not to risk the slight reduction in quality of my recording by running the whole thing through DSP.

It does however make sense that the processor would work better with more bandwidth but I can't speak knowledgeably about that.

You should put that in your signature.

If the OP has a few hundred Albums burning all those CD's and then ripping them back is a rather large hassle and huge time suck.


Actually I spent 7 years installing NLE/VE and DAW suites. I was the guy that people like you came to when you couldn't figure out something in the chain. Your welcome to your opinion and I and others are welcome to keep poking holes in it.


Seriously? You missed all the posts about ESI/EMU/MAudio Pro Audio mastering devices? We aren't talking about the computers analog (native) audio. We are talking about a 3rd party device that is used to master audio on.


You are correct all that flexibility may take a few posts in a forum to tone check. Once setup though you just leave it alone.


You may be right but I'm not willing to write off the OP as a dunce so quickly.

Show where your double blind tests were published showing you can hear the difference between 96 and 192

Your claim that learning how to use an Alesis Masterlink is easier than learning how to use a computer which most of us already know is pretty strange.

Burning a CD just so you can turn around and rip it is IME a waste of time.

Please report back with what device you get as i need to get one too, but have just got a few more important things to buy first.

The thought behind the 1616M is that it has a Phono Pre built into it. I don't know if it is any better or worse than the pre you have. All I do know is the M series from EMU is one heckuva audio device hands down.