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:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  April 2015

ARSCLIST April 2015

Subject:

Re: Here's a tough one - maybe

From:

Dave Burnham <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 28 Apr 2015 02:26:20 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (83 lines)

Of course this is based on three assumptions - that your playback speed with a heavy Edison disc and stylus drag is running at precisely 78.26 rpm, that the original recording turntable was running at exactly 80 rpm and perhaps most unlikely, especially with pop music, that the key of the piece is known and that the group was tuned to A = 440 Hz. A lot of variables. Unless there is a mains hum and the frequency of that is precise and known. 

db

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 28, 2015, at 1:57 AM, John Haley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> You're welcome, Ben.  Taking Paul's math, which looks correct, the
> adjustment you are looking for will be to raise the pitch 2.2% (.022).  To
> raise it a half step, that would be 5.6% (.056).  So the adjustment you
> want to make is a little less than a quarter tone, but you definitely want
> to make it, as a 2.2% change in pitch and tempo (and yes, you want to keep
> them hooked together, as Richard said) can be very noticeable in most
> music, particularly if there is a vocal.  The human voice really wants to
> be reproduced right on pitch, and small changes one way or the other can
> make a voice sound shrill or thick.  But the tone of many instruments
> suffers as well.  A quarter tone is a lot in this context.
> 
> I don't know how reliable the speed is for Edisons, but for most other 78's
> you cannot count on the speed being exactly 78.26, the nominal standard.
> In fact commercial 78's ranged all over the place.  That is why I said it
> would be best to pitch each record individually.
> 
> There is an easy way to do this, which I use almost every day.  I recently
> bought a Yamaha electronic keyboard (only $100 on sale), and I play on it
> all the time along with the music to compare the pitch.  Even just a few
> chords will tell you instantly where the pitch needs to go to be right.  By
> my Korg tuner, which I also use, the Yamaha keyboard is exactly
> top-dead-center on pitch (unlike my Steinway piano). Getting the pitch
> right becomes a snap.
> 
> When it comes to restoration work, getting the pitch right might be the
> very most important thing.  I am always astonished how many transfers of
> both tapes and records, even commercial ones, are done off pitch, sometimes
> wildly off pitch.  It is just as critical an issue when working from tape
> sources, as it can seem like no two tape recorders in the old days ever
> played at exactly the same speed.
> 
> Sometimes, where large changes are necessary, you need to get it close in
> the analog playback domain, and not just on the computer, because the
> operation of phono EQ or tape EQ is impacted.  Those "built in" EQ systems
> are expecting to "see" recordings on pitch and will make the wrong
> adjustments for a recording that is way off pitch.  This will be especially
> true for the bass turnover point for records.
> 
> Best,
> John Haley
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Paul Stamler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 4/27/2015 6:14 PM, Richard L. Hess wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Of course 96 is also good for accurately reproducing the scratches to
>>> make removal easier.
>> 
>> Unless you're using the descratching algorithm in DC-EIGHT or its
>> predecessors, which for some unaccountable reason is optimized for 44.1kHz
>> to the extent that it basically doesn't work at higher sample rates.
>> 
>> I usually work at 44.1kHz, so I don't have a problem with this, but I
>> really don't like the limitation.
>> 
>> And yes, it's vital to work at 24-bit resolution; speed changes and EQ
>> work a helluva lot better on 24-bit files, and so (in my experience) does
>> descratching.
>> 
>> 
>> Peace,
>> Paul
>> 
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> http://www.avast.com
>> 

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