LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


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:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 1 Oct 2012 15:42:29 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (140 lines)

http://packburnelectronics.com/Packburn_Electronics/Test_Drive.html

One man's opinion ...

Based on the examples posted by Packburn Electronics personnel, this thing leaves terrible
artifacts. Listen to the noise pump up and down based on the content level. That's more annoying
than having constant-level noise. Also, by pumping the surrounding crackle up and down, it makes the
music sound even fuzzier, like overload distortion instead of worn-groove distortion.

Perhaps this thing is being misused in these demos?

I go back to my experience that finding the best source possible BEFORE even considering how to
transfer is the key. Next is CLEANING that source carefully and thoroughly. Next is PROPER EQ during
playback and tasteful, subtle use of a mastering-grade equalizer if needed. Then, by the time it
hits the digital domain, it should sound pretty damn good. After that, manually edit the bad ticks
and pops and live with a little crackle and hiss. You'll be happier with it there than with the
artifacts any attempted auto-removal will leave.

Good analog-digital transfer works like good hunting -- the least important thing is what should be
the one single and deadly use of the gun (ie the use of the digital domain). The main thing is
planning the hunt (finding the best possible source), setting up the shot (good and thorough
cleaning of the source record) and using the kill zone effectively and ethically (excellent analog
playback). The actual shot (transfer) is then something that occurs naturally and with little
complication (little need for any sonic "remedies").

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Samuels" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Reducing crackle from 78 rpm records the analogue way on 70's reissue LP's


A very effective analog device for 78 transferring was (and to some degree still is) the various
models of the Packburn (by ARSC members Tom Packard and the late Dick Burns). A multi-function unit,
among other things, it contained a switcher (to choose the quieter of the two groove walls), a
blanker (to suppress or reduce loud clicks), and a dynamic filter. Although the blanker could be
negatively affected by music transients (such as a piano chord, or a drum hit), causing the unit to
"spit", it was highly effective in reducing surface clicks and pops.
Another analog unit that was very popular in 78 work, was the UREI 565, or "Little Dipper". This was
a stationary filter unit that could notch filter audio frequencies, and roll-off the top and bottom
end adjustably very effectively.
Burwen made a professional unit that was a very effective dynamic filter.
These units were often used by remastering professionals (such as Ward Marston, Seth Winner and
myself, among many others) to reduce surface noise of all kinds when transferring 78s.
Another method of removing ticks was to scrape the oxide of the tape transfer over a loud tick,
until the tick was inaudible. Although I personally never used this method, I was told it was quite
effective.
As far as transferring metal parts as opposed to shellac pressings, I agree with Tom for the most
part. Metal parts are far preferable in most cases, but not in all. If a metal part is sonically
worn, or "buffed" (polished so that the high frequencies have been removed), a well-pressed, good
condition shellac will sound far superior. Also, some shellac pressings (especially on vinyl or some
RCA 'z' pressings) are so quiet that they can be as quiet as metal parts, and they will track
significantly better than metals, because metals are rarely flat. In those instances, I prefer
shellacs to metal parts for a 78 transfer project.
Jon Samuels

--- On Mon, 10/1/12, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Tom Fine <[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: Monday, October 1, 2012, 1:38 PM

This was one way it was done. The other way was using excellent condition metal parts, more of which
seemed to exist back in the day. With modern methods, when you buy something like a Mosaic box
set -- which has some metal parts and also uses mass media shellacs -- you can really hear why it's
such a good idea to track down the very best source material possible and not assume digital or
analog "repair" can save the sound. A modern transfer of a metal part that's in good condition can
sound shockingly realistic, very close to what the microphone was hearing except for a sharp rolloff
of the top end. When you have to use commercially-issued shellacs -- even those that weren't
tortured with steel needles at many grams of tracking force -- you lose so much quality because of
loud surface noise, ticks and pops and the like. Modern digital remedies, when used conservatively,
can help with this. The old-school guys had a different idea of EQ vs. modern
 transfer guys. I think the older generation concentrated more on the bass up into the midrange and
figured there was little to no high treble to mess with, so they'd roll it off to cut the surface
noise. Modern engineers, the really good ones, seem to use spectrum-analysis tools to figure out
where there's more music and where there's more noise and then EQ accordingly. The results can sound
"nasal" to some ears (including my own), and I think some modern reissues aren't putting in all the
bass that exists on the disks, but it's good not to have microsecond lapses from razor edits and
too-sharp cutoff of treble information. That said, there are older reissues where metal parts
existed and were in good shape that smoke modern attempts at the same material without access to
metal parts (lost, stolen, destroyed, etc).

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- From: "James Roth" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Reducing crackle from 78 rpm records the analogue way on 70's reissue LP's


Hello all.

In the 70's I work at "Club 99" [operatic reissue) records.
I would use a razor blade and a splicing block to "de-click" the tape transfers of some very
scratchy 78s.
It would take about 3 hours to de-click a 4-minute aria - verrrrry tedious.
Then, we would take the tape to our sound engineer in Manhattan, David Hancock (RIP) and he would so
some expert EQ.

Regards,
Ben Roth


-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Jan Myren
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 12:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [ARSCLIST] Reducing crackle from 78 rpm records the analogue way on 70's reissue LP's





HI!



I spent the week-end going through my collection of 70's and 80's compilation albums of old jazz
records remastered by John R.T. Davies and Robert Parker.



I must say I am a bit impressed by the way they were able to suppress noise and especially the
crackle form the old 78's they used.



May anybody remember (or know) how they did that and what kind of machines they used back in the
analogue days?



All the best

Jan

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

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
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