LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  June 2012

ARSCLIST June 2012

Subject:

Re: audio from pictures

From:

Ted Kendall <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:44:42 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (187 lines)

On 21/06/2012 20:34, Michael Biel wrote:
> Many restorers use many more than one copy of a record in their
> restorations.  Jon Samuels and I brought this up at the ARSC Conference
> when the new people at Syracuse's Belfor Archive discussed surplussing
> copies beyond two using only visual grading.  The two of us along with
> Seth Winner were still discussing this, with the two of them saying how
> they and others sometimes use ten or more copies.  Not so much for
> simultaneous playing --  but as stitching sections together as Randy
> discusses with film restoration.  But as Don Cox said concerning
> simultaneous playing:
>
>> The two groove walls of a mono record already do what you suggest, but
>> twenty copies might be better than two.
> Similar to what Jerry Hartke suggests, back as far as WW II, monitors of
> international broadcasting would often use two receivers listening to
> the same station's multiple transmissions on different frequencies with
> binaural headphones -- the audio could be fused in the center while the
> noise stays separated out into the two different ears.  This can also
> work playing back some of Tom Fine's examples of worn Paramount blues
> records.  If one copy is available, play it in stereo/binaural.  If two
> copies are available, play them locked together, maybe using the four
> available groove walls in separate channels.
>
> This technology is already available for aural listening -- we use the
> algorithm in our brain!
>
> But getting back to the non-groove pictures, I opined that fine grain
> photos of 700,000 78s exist in the Rigler-Deutsch Record Index films but
> that they all have light-wedges from point lighting instead of the ring
> lighting I had suggested.  I wonder if Patrick and his technological
> wizards might try to see if there is an algorithm that might be able to
> even the lighting problem out.  Since the same camera and light sources
> were used on all of the records, maybe that is possible.  (And thanks to
> Chuck Howell for saying he would have listened to me!!  I wish you had
> been a part of the AAA back then!)
>
> Mike Biel   [log in to unmask]
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] audio from pictures
> From: Jerry Hartke <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, June 21, 2012 10:48 am
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> This technique has been used for decades by our government to extract
> information from noise. One example is submerged submarine
> communications
> where the noise level can exceed the signal level. I believe that one
> method
> is called autocorrelation. I do not have references, but perhaps some of
> the
> older methods have been placed in the public domain.
>
> Jerry hartke
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Randy Riddle
>> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:00 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] audio from pictures
>>
>> I've thought for some time that there's already a way to do this with
>> at least some recordings.
>>
>> For years, film restorers have used multiple prints of films, taking
>> the best quality sections from each that survive, sometime
>> substituting small sections in a print that has been damaged.
>>
>> Why couldn't that be done with recordings where multiple copies survive?
>>
>> Basically, what the software would do is let you take multiple sound
>> files sourced from different copies of the same record. Each will
>> have been damaged and degraded in different ways and have different
>> patterns of noise.
>>
>> The software, after synching the recordings, would compare them and
>> "toss out" the noise and keeping commonalities between the copies.
>> The more copies of the recording you have available, the better the
>> result might be, at least theoretically.
>>
>> Why couldn't this work?
>>
>> rand
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Steve:
>>>
>>> I agree with you in general, but I'm talking about recordings where
>> analog
>>> playback has produced poor results -- for instance the badly worn and
>>> super-rare Paramount blues records. No transfer I've heard using analog
>>> playback and whatever digi-trix the producer decided to use has produced
>>> very good-sounding results.
>>>
>>> I think the pot of gold at the end of the research rainbow for  non-
>> physical
>>> playback of grooved media is the ability to "erase" all the noise that
>> comes
>>> from the media itself, and of damage to the media. Then, in theory (and
>>> sometime in the future) you'd just be reproducing the information
>> originally
>>> cut into the groove.
>>>
>>> For now, I wouldn't worry about your transfer business (or mine) being
>> under
>>> dire threat. But I hope I live long enough to see the day when putting a
>>> needle to an old groove for critical playback or transfer is considered
>>> obsolete.
>>>
>>> -- Tom Fine
>>> From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, June 21, 2012 12:44 pm
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Meanwhile, there's the nagging question of what to do with unique
> artifacts.
>
> An algorithm that can tell the difference between sound (coherent) and
> noise (non-coherent) would be great. Or maybe a really sensitive noise
> gate that can select pixel by pixel, or the audio equivalent. Imagine a
> spectral view of a wav file and a process for eliminating everything
> below a certain threshold on a pixel by pixel basis. Never mind the
> slices of the spectrum. Only that which is above the threshold remains.
>
> With the Berliner file in question, the voice fades somewhat at moments
> leaving the noise as loud as the voice, or louder.
>
> The problem for me is that I don't speak German so I don't what I'm
> hearing anyway.
>
> joe salerno
>
>
> On 6/21/2012 11:34 AM, Don Cox wrote:
>> On 21/06/2012, Randy Riddle wrote:
>>
>>> I've thought for some time that there's already a way to do this with
>>> at least some recordings.
>>>
>>> For years, film restorers have used multiple prints of films, taking
>>> the best quality sections from each that survive, sometime
>>> substituting small sections in a print that has been damaged.
>>>
>>> Why couldn't that be done with recordings where multiple copies
>>> survive?
>>>
>>> Basically, what the software would do is let you take multiple sound
>>> files sourced from different copies of the same record. Each will
>>> have been damaged and degraded in different ways and have different
>>> patterns of noise.
>>>
>>> The software, after synching the recordings, would compare them and
>>> "toss out" the noise and keeping commonalities between the copies.
>>> The more copies of the recording you have available, the better the
>>> result might be, at least theoretically.
>>>
>>> Why couldn't this work?
>>>
>> Wow from slight off-centring would be a problem, but maybe Capstan could
>> deal with that.
>>
>> Otherwise, the stitching algorithms used for images should be easily
>> adaptable.
>>
>> The two groove walls of a mono record already do what you suggest, but
>> twenty copies might be better than two.
>
Chris Hicks of Cedar did his doctorate on just this question of multiple 
copies. When the algorithm could be persuaded to work, the results were 
much as you would expect - enhancement of the correlated wanted signal 
and reduction of the random noise. Unfortunately, pulling the recordings 
into good enough sync for artifacts to be negligible was a frustrating 
and difficult business, even with recordings made one after the other 
(by me, as it happens) on the same kit on the same settings on the same 
afternoon, with meticulous centring. The minute geometrical differences 
between different laminated pressings were enough to throw things 
continually out of register. The example produced, however, is a 
tantalising glimpse of what might one day be possible.

Whenever I do a master of the QHCF Decca of "Souvenirs", I use three 
copies from the shelf - one for the very start, one for most of the side 
and one for the last few turns where the others are afflicted with 
"Decca scrunch".

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager