As a singer for many years, I'd always heard it called "perfect pitch", but the irony was that the two singers with it in our college choir wouldn't always agree, although it was splitting musical hairs when they'd give a pitch for an acappella anthem. They were usually within a semi-tone of each other. I've found that my relative pitch has worked well in correcting pitch problems in recordings as long as I have reference from digital tones/pitches from trustworthy sources. Unfortunately, tuned piano keyboards and other acoustical instruments are not absolute and drift given atmospheric and other conditions. A digital A-440 is definitely more trustworthy.
--- On Thu, 10/4/12, Paul Stamler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Paul Stamler <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Reducing crackle from 78 rpm records the analogue way on 70's reissue LP's
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, October 4, 2012, 12:08 PM
On 10/4/2012 9:33 AM, Carl Pultz wrote:
> No one has mentioned the method that Andrew Rose applies: picking out the 50
> or 60Hz residual hum as a way to determine correct speed. Maybe that's been
> discussed before on the list. What's the consensus, if there is one?
I've done it, and as long as I kept the limitations of the method in mind (60Hz wasn't always 60Hz) it's worked for me.
As for absolute pitch, or devices to detect variations from standard pitch, those only work if the original was recorded at standard pitch. For a jazz band -- especially one including a piano -- the odds of A-440 are pretty good. For a hillbilly or blues record, with no fixed-pitch instruments (just fiddles, banjos or guitars) there's no guarantee. Restoring the disc to concert pitch may be wrong.