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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  October 2012

ARSCLIST October 2012

Subject:

Re: Reducing crackle from 78 rpm records the analogue way on 70's reissue LP's

From:

Ted Kendall <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 3 Oct 2012 10:12:45 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (97 lines)

On 02/10/2012 23:16, Doug Pomeroy wrote:
> 1) Don't forget that John RT Davies had one of the greatest collections of
> jazz 78s in the world, and most of them were in E+ to M condition! (I was
> once told that John never transferred metal parts and that he was horrified
> by the idea! I wanted to discuss this with him, but he died before I could
> do so.)
>
> 2) When making a transfer John used his graphic equalizer (Klark-Teknik),
> to filter out completely all the noise above the music. Of critical importance
> was that John was a musician and had "good ears".
>
> 3) John also used his equalizer to make corrections to the frequency spectrum
> of the music, but he did so with "a musician's ear", with respect for the original
> recording characteristic, and with the objective of making the music sound as
> natural as possible. (My words, not his.)
>
> 4) John is the one who devised the technique of scraping oxide off the tape to
> remove (attenuate) pops and clicks. This he did with consummate skill, unlike
> some others who tried it ;-)
>
> 5) John was not afraid to use processors to help remove surface noises.
> He used a device called The Front End, designed and built by British engineer
> Ted Kendell (who worked with John). John referred to the device, humorously,
> as "the mousetrap". Later I believe I was the one who persuaded John to try
> CEDAR's Declicker, which I believe he did use from that point on.
>
> 6) Speaking of splicing tape to remove pops and clicks: I worked on many
> LP reissues at Columbia in the mid 1970's and the razor blade was the number
> one tool. Larry Keyes, who worked on the Bessie Smith reissues, made 15 ips
> quarter-track tapes for de-clicking on the theory that de-clicking a recorded
> track of such small width shortens the program less than removing the same click
> from a full-track recording - I'm not sure who actually came up with that idea.
>
> My own discovery was that, using a full-track recording, you don't need to
> cut out the entire click, which removes about 1/4" of tape, but you could
> just cut out the middle of the click (say 1/8" inch) and this leaves a tiny bit
> of the click at the top of the tape on the incoming side, and a tiny bit on the
> bottom on the outgoing side but these two smaller clicks, now separated in
> time, simply become inaudible!
>
> The noise removal world has surely changed! When I bought the CEDAR
> Declicker, it cost $15,000. Today there are declickers which are very nearly
> as good, which sell for less than $100. But the operator remains the most
> critical component. Even CEDAR's excellent processors can be made to
> sound bad by an insensitive operator.
>
> Doug Pomeroy
> Audio Restoration & Mastering Services
> [log in to unmask]
>
>> From: "Jon Samuels" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 5:15 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Reducing crackle from 78 rpm records the analogue way on 70's reissue LP's
>>
>>
>> Dennis and I are in complete agreement here. The most effective tools in remastering ANYTHING are
>> good ears and good judgment. Sounds much easier than it is, but it's a fact. After that, having a
>> high quality sound source, proper disc preparation and using the proper playback equipment in good
>> working order are key. As Tom wrote, it is far better to have a better sound source than to clean it
>> up after the fact. Think of it as a vaccine, rather than a cure. Far better never to have the
>> disease, than to try and cure it.
>> In my experience, ALL de-noising programs or hardware (whether declicking, decracking or removing
>> steady noise) have anywhere from a little to a lot of negative effect on the signal. There is no
>> free lunch. For example, Sonic No Noise has a manual deticking series of algorithms that are very
>> time consuming to use (if removing many ticks), but work quite well. I did a test however, on a
>> extremely ticky 78 side, and removed the ticks manually using these algorithms. I found to my dismay
>> that when I A-B'ed the original to the deticked version, the signal had become somewhat duller, and
>> EQ'ing did not restore the lost "bloom". Having said that, CEDAR Cambridge, Sonic No Noise, iZotope
>> RX2, Weiss DNA-1 etc, can be highly effective in reducing noise, and the negative effects can be
>> either acceptable or compensated for to some degree if the software/hardware are used judiciously.
>> Jon Samuels
Another two bits...

CEDAR Respeed works. And you can actually buy it.

John RT transferred from metal when he could get hold of it, as we all
do. What he didn't like was playing negatives, which in my view also is
something to be avoided when there is any possibility of making a
positive. And yes, his collection was /nice! ,/to use one of his
favourite expressions.

The reason John could make oxide removal work is the extreme accuracy of
location offered by the de-cerealiser. You can't wing a click with this
method, you have to hit it right on the head to bring its level down to
that of the surrounding noise. A tad to right or left and the dropout
merely accentuates the click. Working at 7 1/2 also helped, as the click
was shorter and required less length of oxide to be removed. He
speculated that some residual flux bridging smoothed the transitions,
and in any case the whole coating was seldom removed - more like half.
Of course, most of the HF energy is recorded on the surface of the
coating, so removing the top part of the coating would have a greater
effect on HF than LF.

Of course, as Doug says, without a decent pair of Ears Mk 1 and some
grey matter behind 'em, all this goes for nothing.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager