One man's opinions, experiences, YMMV, etc. ...

Steve is right that a graphic EQ is helpful, and I also think a preamp with adjustable turnover and 
rolloff is very necessary. Dial in what sounds best for casual listening, dial in what's truest to 
the source for archival tranfers. On later-era 78's, there can be musical content at 12K and even 
higher. For acoustic era, there is nothing even at 8K in almost all cases. The thing is, not graphic 
EQ just lops off at the stated frequency, they all have a curve that bends up or down over a bunch 
more frequencies below and above the target frequency, so tune by ear.

A box of shellacs picked up at a 2nd hand store are just not going to sound like a modern reissue CD 
made from metal parts. You will never achieve the low noise level and low distortion level of 
primary source material. Manufactured shellacs vary in quality from quite amazingly clear to fuzzy 
noise-hash messes. It depends on the manufacturer and manufacture date and how the thing has been 
stored these many decades.

Of course, cleaning a shellac before playing is key. Deep cleaning the groove eliminates many ticks 
and pops and can reduce background hash. You can use a vacuum/scrub machine (use the appropriate 
cleaning fluid and change the brush and vacuum pad before doing LPs), or a simple soft sponge and 
Ivory dish soap works. Rinse thoroughly and pat dry. And of course wet the record before sponge-ing 
it. Those blue shammy clothes sold at record-sleeve online stores are a great finish-dry cloth. 
Store the cleaned records in new sleeves; as kewl as those ancient brown-wrinkled sleeves are, they 
are not appropriate for storage after decades of dust and casual storage.

Steve is also right about bass content. It's usually a compromise between rumble reduction and 
legitimate bass content, tune to ear's preferences.

As for dbx (Jan was obviously asking about the companders like 3BX and 2BX, not the closed-loop NR 
system), and the Phase Linear 1000 for that matter, they can help if used very carefully, especially 
on non-music content like transcriptions. Very conservative, very careful, they can reduce 
background hash a little bit. But, any modern digital NR will do a better job if used properly.

Again, one man's opinions, experiences, YMMV, etc.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven C. Barr" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] DBX for playback of 78s


> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John Eberle" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Here is my take on this : DBX Noise reduction is an encode in  recording
>> and decode in playback system designed to reduce tape noise in
>> professional recording studios . There was an attempt by DBX to interest the  record
>> industry in a version designed to be used in the mastering of 45s and lps and
>> the decode unit was to be incorporated
>> into the preamp or the playback  system . The company I was working for at
>> the time , Nashville Record  Productions in Music City USA was given an
>> onsite demo of this system and it was  considered by many
>> in the industry for adoption as it was quite effective.
>> The big drawback to the DBX record system and the reason for  its'
>> lack of acceptance was that the DBX encoded record was most unpleasant  to
>> listen to on a playback system that did not have the DBX
>> decoder ; making  compatibility in the market place a big problem
>>
> I always found that the most useful tool for listening to 78rpm phonorecords
> was a standard (and cheaply available these days) 10-band equalizer.
> Obviously, more advanced eq's (if one can afford them?!) would be of
> better use!
>
> At any rate, 78rpm phonorecords of the 1889-195? era basically had a
> "bandwidth" (frequency response) of around 50-6000 kHz. THAT is
> what is on the original recording (although it MIGHT be possible to
> recreate "implied" notes via a computer?!).
>
> I always set my eq to chop the upper octave (no recorded content
> there!) and the lower couple of octaves (three for acoustic originals!)
> for the same reason!
>
> One caveat! Apparently, the bass response of early-electrical-era
> 78's was MUCH lower than one might expect; I have MANY
> pipe-organ recordings (Jesse Crawford et al) mage in that era
> which exhibit AMAZING low-end content...!!
>
> Steven C. Barr