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  October 2012

ARSCLIST October 2012

Subject:

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

From:

Doug Pomeroy <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 2 Oct 2012 18:16:41 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (72 lines)

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

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

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