At 10:05 PM 8/28/2003 +0200, George Brock-Nannestad wrote:
>From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
> > >----- Mike, all you had to do was to say "I agree!"
> > Except that I do not.
>----- Mike, you seem to describe that you do a first transfer to a modern,
>digital medium, in which you can in a simple way change speed of reproduction
>proportional to change in pitch (e.g. simulating a change of speed of
>reproduction of an analogue medium). Once you have determined the desired
>speed of the original analogue carrier, you transfer that again, for good,
>with an adjustment according to your experiments on the first digital copy.
>In your own words, you are able to work with just two transfers and two
>occasions for wear of the original.
>To this I can say, I totally agree, I have done precisely that (since 1980),
>but using an analogue cassette for the first transfer. I have still to see a
>digital system that will do the same as quickly (the turn of a knob) as an
>analogue reproducer. So I do think you agree after all. But how do you select
>your stylii? (a completely different can of worms).
I prefer to use a digital system because I can then select the processes I
will use later. For example, if I determine that the simple transfer is 1%
flat, I select a sample rate 1% below my target rate (e.g., 39640 sps
instead of 44100), then tell the program that it was digitized at
44100. If needed, I might have CoolEdit 'slide' the sampling to correct
for pitch error across the disc, though this does introduce a small amount
of the errors of resampling - small because the adjustment being made is
If I were using an analogue corrector, I would use cassette as well so that
the correction profile is the inverse when recording of what I did when
playing back that tape. However, I gave up my tools for that sort of
adjustment some years ago and now deal with simpler approximations. In
short, in what I'm doing now, I am operating at a level far more crude than
are most here. I no longer deal with primary materials for a number of
reasons and my standards have been reduced for my own work.
>BUT, do remember that Jon's original query was:
> >My present view (subject to being changed with a persuasive
> >argument) is that pitching should not be a worry during the transfer
> >itself (just get it close.) Once digitized, during the restoration
> >process the recording can be pitched digitally using sound processing
> >software (effectively by resampling).
I find it preferable to correct pitch before digitizing. I save the work at
that point, do whatever processing I judge to be best and put it away.
Returning to it a day or more later, I may judge the cleanup to be
incorrect and make another pass from the saved version - which is already
at the 'right' pitch.
Relevant to all of the above, I note that I'm now 64 years old and my
hearing is neither as extended nor as reliable as it was thirty years ago.
I have been suffering from tinnitis for some time and had surgery on my
left middle ear a month ago in the hope that it will be reduced. In short,
I no longer trust myself to do the sort of processing we are discussing
here and therefore am only writing of what I had done. At one time, I had
McIntosh and Marantz tube amplification with selectable turnover and
rolloff, a suitable table and a variety of styluses. Today, when I am faced
with a 78, I approximate by recording at 45 (Shure V15 with 3-mil stylus,
correcting as indicated above) and roughly approximate EQ by what's left of
my hearing. Needless to say, I make no claim of archival fidelity for the
[log in to unmask]