Same point on wow...
You guys are not reducible to a plugin somebody can buy.
Slow sinusoidal wow w no vibrato? Plugin, though I'm not sure it's archivally valid to use the material itself. Try that on a Brian May solo guitar chord - hilarious.
For wow precision flutter removal, and IM reduction, then just as you guys are labs, so are we, and there's no point of intersection w the plugin.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 3, 2012, at 12:09 PM, Ted Kendall <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 03/10/2012 13:21, Tom Fine wrote:
>> Ted, GOOD JOB on the Lunceford transfers from John RT Davies' collection. Some of those are remarkably good recordings for 80 years ago. The low level of surface noise on the test pressings really make the dynamics pop. Whomever the Kapps had for an engineer knew what he was doing.
>> -- Tom Fine
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Kendall" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 5:12 AM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Reducing crackle from 78 rpm records the analogue way on 70's reissue LP's
>>> 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.
> Couldn't agree more, Tom. The pressings were done around 1960, when Decca decided to scrap most of their 78 metal. Intelligently, however, they struck a few vinyls from each stamper before scrapping it, and these have trickled out over time. If only we could hear more 78 recordings in this way. The sense of the room, combined with the bite and immediacy of the band, is quite something...