The content is of no importance here. There are a sequence of songs that are being played, each one has a clearly marked time, from the start of the song to its conclusion. When the song starts, the program starts counting the time indicated for the length of that song, when it notices the absence of program material at the end of the songs time frame, it separates it into a unique song. This is no different than I would do, if I was going to do it manually.
Sorry but that is incorrect. Otherwise, live albums and any albums with songs in a sequence seguing into each other would be affected and that's a *lot* of albums. Dark Side Of The Moon, Sgt Peppers, and the list goes on. There's more to it than what you described which is why, if this automated process is ever implemented and activated properly with the SC-2, that it'll be mightily impressive.
I don't see it as being correct. each separate song has a finite published running time. That is the same thing as songs that seguing into other songs, there is a definitive point, governed by the track length and that is the cutoff point for the song. I've used software that allows for manual cuts back before I tabled the whole idea. It also is not important if its implementation is not perfect. Microsoft never put a any version of software that I have ever found to be perfect and that goes back over 40-years. The vast majority of albums have definitive tracks, with dead vinyl between them, this can easily be taken into consideration and implemented through an automated approach. That should not preclude the ability to manually override the process and place the cut, where ever you wish. somewhere along the way, songs that segue into the next song, have to be cut. It can be precisely cut at a predetermined time or manually, if you don't care for the how the computer cuts the track.
I get what you’re saying. Use the same time data that already exists for millions of titles out there. I would imagine that’s what they are doing, as there are too many songs with false endings, etc. You might as well use the existing data instead of reinventing the wheel.
Not that high a percentage in my collection. Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, Sgt Peppers, Dark Side Of The Moon, live albums, and the list goes on. I'd say maybe 70% of my albums have clean breaks. Even then, there would be issues with LPs with silent portions or a silence before continuing such as The Doors' "When The Music Is Over" where the whole band stops and there's a 3-sec gap before they resume. The Raspberries' "Overnight Sensation" has a fade out, then silence, then kicks back again. I could name examples 'till the cows come home. It's an idea that would work with traditional loud material with clear breaks. But I could see at least half of my collection causing issues with tons of false positives which would require me to fix afterwards. It'll be interesting to see whether all of these factors will have an impact on how well the detecting/recording/tagging functions will work on the SC-2. Still can't believe they haven't yet got it working. Pretty incredible, actually.
Exactly, for the reasons that you quote, there are issues with complete automation, which is why you fix these things manually. I think we are missing a connection here. If you are timing the track, it is the start time plus the track time length to get to the finish time. it does not matter how many seconds break or how many times the band pauses during the song or for how long. If a cut is 7-minutes and twenty seconds it ends in 7-minutes and twenty seconds after it starts, period. Then, at that point, the song is digitally captured. It is not a matter of detection except where detecting where the program starts. You just set the detection level's sensitivity, like to sense when there is actual program material playing, like in the beginning of D.S.O.T.M. (My pristine original copy is from 1973). Speak to me runs 1:30, then after a break comes Breath for 2:43 and so on.
Understood. I just couldn’t quite bring myself to shell out $3K for the SC-2. It’d be great if Sweet Vinyl would put a digital out on the SC-1.
I'm seriously considering springing for the SC-2. However, since I live in Denmark, the thought of shipping it back to the U.S. in case of hardware upgrades isn't very appealing. Is it safe to purchase now or should I wait a year or so until all the kinks are worked out? Any opions from those of you who are familiar with the company?
Be aware the automatic track tagging and separating isn't available... yet. At least, according to Sweet Vinyl. The SC-2 will allow you to output the digitized file to a USB key, computer, or a networked drive (like a NAS) but you will nevertheless need to manually separate the files and tag them yourself. If these features are important to you, I would suggest you wait as I'm unsure if these features will ever be introduced. At this point, it's more of a case (from my perspective, at least) of "I'll believe it when I see it". It's a small company but these excuses can only go so far. It's been 1.5 years since the project was funded and more than a year since the products have been released onto the market with one of its key marketed features still nowhere to be found, so... The high price for the SC-2 is also hard to swallow considering the above. With small companies, there isn't a wide support network so you likely would need to send it back if there was an issue. From experience, any component can become problematic or die without warning at any time. In the end, it's a chance you have to decide for yourself if you're OK with taking. You might have a forever problem-free unit or you might end up with a problematic one requiring you to send it back for an exchange/repair. There's no way to tell. If it helps at all, I have only read of one user experiencing issues with their unit but playing devil's advocate, there aren't enough units out to form an opinion in that regard either way. Let us know what you decide to do. It's certainly an interesting machine. There's no denying that.
Thanks for the thoughtful response Strat-Mangler. Tagging and seperating the files manually isn't really a dealbreaker for me, although I agree it's slightly disenchanting that they haven't found a way to implant these features after so much time. As you say, it's not exactly a cheap piece of hardware. I'll take your advice into account as I mull this over the next few weeks. I will keep you posted.
There's no wrong answer, really. It's a risk no matter how you slice it. It'd be a risk for me as it's a small company which could fold overnight but then again, even bigger companies with a solid reputation can fold, too... as was the case recently with Oppo. Maybe a price break will occur at a later time. Maybe the aforementioned features will be implemented. Maybe a new cheaper model will be released. Waiting can open some doors or it might not.
One solution would be to output the digital data to your computer and import into Vinyl Studio, which is a very robust program, and fairly cheap at around $35, if memory serves. I don't think it declicks as well as the Sugar Cubes but it does interrogate different databases of known recorded music and 97/100 get the correct song data and album title. You choose the correct one of the options and then adjust your waveform graphically with the song breaks overloading the waveform. These are usually pretty close but always require manual adjustments to get things just right, which isn't too hard really. The fact is that no turntable will have the exact same speed, delay from when the stylus hits the groove etc. Additionally, you can remove hiss/rumble and output in FLAC (I usually output in 24/96), MP3, ALAC, or AIFF.I think this would be a good workflow for ripping from SC-2, honestly. Using these I could see you getting near flawless vinyl rips.
One could argue that there isn't that much point to the SC-2 if the best applications and a terrific interface can be bought for much cheaper and would require almost as much manual labor.
Very much this. I thought carefully about spending the extra $1K on the SC-2 and decided that the *only* feature it has over the SC-1 that is fully baked and usable right now is the ability to record (and even then it's unclear to me whether it just records to a USB drive or you can send the digital out over USB to a workstation to record with something like Adobe Audition). So I went for the SC-1 instead. Although even *that* was nearly a no-go at $2K (it would've been a no-brainer at $1200-$1500). It'd be ideal to me if the SC-1 had digital out in addition to the analog outs...or I'd be perfectly happy to settle for record-to-USB-media capability on the SC-1 without the display and the track lookup, which I doubt will ever work as initially intended. Looking forward to getting the SC-1 from Music Direct in a few weeks to try it out myself...I've my fair share of crackle-and-pop vinyl, both new and used.
Latest update: Music Direct has informed me that they're unable to ship internationally. I'm in Denmark, so bad luck. I've now e-mailed Sweet Vinyl questioning if there's any way for me to purchase the SC-2 in my country. I'm fully expecting a dead-end ahead, but it's worth a shot...
Just be aware that the direct answer I got from SV is that the SC-1 does not support the export of the signal in any way digitally. You could connect an RCA interconnect onto your PC's soundcard in Line In or in an interface but as I mentioned in another post, the conversion chain would be like this ; A to D, D to A, A to D, and then D to A when listening. I'm sure as to what to expect in terms of audible signal degradation. That's a *lot* of conversions!
Your other options are to look for a drop-ship company to which you can ship the device and will then ship it to you for a fee. Another option is asking a member here to do so. I specifically got an account in a US warehouse because loads of businesses do not ship internationally, even if it's a few hundred miles up north.
Totally agree. I'm just giving you a robust way of getting the job done, if an additional step or two. Unfortunately the nature of digitizing an analog signal will lead to imperfections in song breaks. Unless, or of cou, SV finds a way to perfect the process of breaking up songs and labeling them, which would be surprising since so many others have tried and failed.
I'm interested in this. My integrated Rotel 1592 has a built-in phono stage and a pre out. Would I be able to take a feed from the pre out to the Sugarcube, then out from the Sugarcube back into a line in on the Rotel?
Unfortunately there is no tape loop. There’s no way of separating the pre and power. The manual does say that with the pre out, the tone control settings (which I use - perish the thought!) still apply. But that arrangement just seems odd. If I had say the treble lifted, then it goes through the pre-out to the Sugarcube, then back into a spare line in…and the treble lift is applied again? I guess I could test by just running a pair of cables from the pre-out straight back into a line in, but I’m worried something might go horribly wrong!
Just send them an email with your question to be sure. P.S. - Tone Controls are great, pay no attention to the toneless audiophiles behind the curtain!
Thanks. I have emailed for their advice on how I could connect. But I now know the answer is that it cannot be done. If you think about it, I'd have to set the Rotel's input to Phono if I want the phono signal routed through the pre-out ...but then I'd also need to set it to Aux in (for example) to listen to the signal through the Sugarcube. The only way I could get it to work is change the amp (which I only got a few weeks ago before I ever thought of the Sugarcube!) or get an external phono stage.
