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  December 2020

ARSCLIST December 2020

Subject:

Re: Noise reduction on mono records using two separate coherent sources

From:

Jamie Howarth <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sun, 20 Dec 2020 18:31:55 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (130 lines)

HI Tim et al 
The late Roger Nichols talked about a zillion track multitrack head for mono or stereo whereby the correlated audio could be made distinct from each track's noise and AM distortion and that probably could work, but it's not as easy as it looks because the tape isn't dimensionally that stable, dynamically - local momentary stretching occurs. 

We find that there are local skewing effects in not only the azimuth but in the wow and flutter profiles of a stereo pair, which seems odd until the ductile stretch-rebound of the tape is imagined into the visualization of the problem. 
Odd flutters that flip sides for example due to the idler roller of a 3M isoloop was a bit of a head scratcher. 
But in theory if the individual control signals were accurately obtained or if Patrick was pretty certain what the sync variations were then it would be easy to use Plangent to do some of this, and in fact the ability to individually edit the speed control tracks, correlate them etc would probably make this feasible. But the trouble will be the signal to noise ratio of the sampled "sync" - we find that just the hiss on the bias is enough to cause a stereo pair to diverge, and I'm sure those oddball differentials as described above don't help. At this point we pick the stronger of the two tracks and use it for both, with excellent results, tho one channel is ever so slightly less accurate (again because of things like oblate rollers causing momentary velocity differentials between the two tracks at the head. 

Don't know if this helps but I bet there's some thought experiments that would make it possible to be adapted for use as desired here. 


Jamie Howarth

+1 845.652.0277


> On Dec 20, 2020, at 4:47 AM, Tim Gillett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Ted, 
> 
> I'd thought I'd read  Peter Copeland's BL paper thoroughly enough but
> must have missed where he talks about this.  I  thought of the cake
> stand idea but then thought a conventional turntable with a high
> sample rate readout of time base (platter rotational angle at any
> given moment) would be more practical as it seems mechanically easier
> and requires the least mechanical mods to the turntable. Even though
> the turntable's speed mightnt be entirely accurate it seems possible
> to  correct it in post using the turntable's time base information
> once the files are digitised using a Plangent bias type process.  
> 
> I'll try and chase up Hicks'  paper.
> 
> Tim.  
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To:<[log in to unmask]>
> Cc:
> Sent:Sun, 20 Dec 2020 06:58:42 +0000
> Subject:Re: [ARSCLIST] Noise reduction on mono records using two
> separate coherent sources
> 
> This was a favourite thought experiment of Peter Copeland, late 
> conservation manager at the British Library National Sound Archive.
> His 
> idea was the "cake stand", where two platters were mounted in the
> same 
> spindle. Even with this (presumably) rigid coupling between the two 
> transfers, warpage, off centre pressings and differing pickup 
> compliances would throw synchronism off enough to defeat the object
> of 
> the exercise. Christopher Hicks of CEDAR did his doctoral thesis on
> this 
> problem as well, and managed by some cunning DSP to hold five copies
> of 
> the same recording in sync long enough for the theoretical benefit to
> 
> confirmed. As things stand, though, as a practical technique it's
> still 
> a non-starter. One day, perhaps...
> 
> On 20/12/2020 05:20, Tim Gillett wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I've  familiar with the principle of summing two audio recordings
> of
>> the same programme where the wanted programmes are time coherent
> but
>> the unwanted background noises arent, making it possible in theory
> to
>> realize a 3db reduction of the background noise. I've used it  on
>> cassette and  1/4 track "stereo" recordings which are actually
> dual
>> mono, although time alignment can be a little tricky and an
> "azimuth"
>> tool can really help.
>> 
>> Earlier 78 RPM recordings  are understandably noisy especially as
> I
>> believe was customary, the original metal parts were usually
> recycled
>> for cost reasons  so all transfer engineers have to work with may
> be
>> the best shellac consumer pressings that have survived.
>> 
>>  The other day while browsing I chanced upon a seemingly mint
>> condition 10"  78 shellac  record of  Eileen Joyce performing
>> "Berceuse" in 1939.  Here's a modern CD release of it.
>>  https://youtu.be/JybH6wxFUrs
>> 
>> Quite noisy and limited bandwidth, even for 1939 I thought.   I
>> cleaned and transferred the disc I'd found and after declicking
>> compared the sound to the version linked to. The two versions
> sounded
>> close. Signal to noise was about the same.
>> 
>> I believe that compared to vinyl, shellac was  a relatively noise
>> medium so it occured to me that assuming the stamper had less noise
>> than the shellac copies, it should be possible to time align the
> audio
>> from the two discs, sum to mono and  yield a potential background
>> noise reduction of 3db. Not huge but with an already noisy
> recording,
>> not to be sneezed at!
>> 
>> So far I've not had much success. I'm having problems trying to
>> accurately time align my disc transfer with the  commercial
> release.
>> I can get them within maybe a few milliseconds but it's not enough.
>> The two versions drift in and out of sync causing comb filtering.
>>  My next step might be to find another mint disc of the same
>> performance and make my own transfer of both on the same gear under
>> the same conditions so at least there is a fighting chance of an
>> accurate  alignment. Maybe a better turntable with more precise
> speed
>> regulation?
>> 
>>  Has anyone tried this technique with 78 RPM shellac records or
> have
>> any comments?
>> 
>> Cheers Tim.
>> 
>> 
>> -------------------------
>> Email sent using Optus Webmail
> 
> -------------------------
> Email sent using Optus Webmail

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

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