 |
 |
At 10:05 PM 8/28/2003 +0200, George Brock-Nannestad wrote: >From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad > > > > >----- Mike, all you had to do was to say "I agree!" > > > > Except that I do not. > >----- Mike, you seem to describe that you do a first transfer to a modern, >digital medium, in which you can in a simple way change speed of reproduction >proportional to change in pitch (e.g. simulating a change of speed of >reproduction of an analogue medium). Once you have determined the desired >speed of the original analogue carrier, you transfer that again, for good, >with an adjustment according to your experiments on the first digital copy. >In your own words, you are able to work with just two transfers and two >occasions for wear of the original. Just so. >To this I can say, I totally agree, I have done precisely that (since 1980), >but using an analogue cassette for the first transfer. I have still to see a >digital system that will do the same as quickly (the turn of a knob) as an >analogue reproducer. So I do think you agree after all. But how do you select >your stylii? (a completely different can of worms). I prefer to use a digital system because I can then select the processes I will use later. For example, if I determine that the simple transfer is 1% flat, I select a sample rate 1% below my target rate (e.g., 39640 sps instead of 44100), then tell the program that it was digitized at 44100. If needed, I might have CoolEdit 'slide' the sampling to correct for pitch error across the disc, though this does introduce a small amount of the errors of resampling - small because the adjustment being made is slight. If I were using an analogue corrector, I would use cassette as well so that the correction profile is the inverse when recording of what I did when playing back that tape. However, I gave up my tools for that sort of adjustment some years ago and now deal with simpler approximations. In short, in what I'm doing now, I am operating at a level far more crude than are most here. I no longer deal with primary materials for a number of reasons and my standards have been reduced for my own work. >BUT, do remember that Jon's original query was: > > >My present view (subject to being changed with a persuasive > >argument) is that pitching should not be a worry during the transfer > >itself (just get it close.) Once digitized, during the restoration > >process the recording can be pitched digitally using sound processing > >software (effectively by resampling). I find it preferable to correct pitch before digitizing. I save the work at that point, do whatever processing I judge to be best and put it away. Returning to it a day or more later, I may judge the cleanup to be incorrect and make another pass from the saved version - which is already at the 'right' pitch. Relevant to all of the above, I note that I'm now 64 years old and my hearing is neither as extended nor as reliable as it was thirty years ago. I have been suffering from tinnitis for some time and had surgery on my left middle ear a month ago in the hope that it will be reduced. In short, I no longer trust myself to do the sort of processing we are discussing here and therefore am only writing of what I had done. At one time, I had McIntosh and Marantz tube amplification with selectable turnover and rolloff, a suitable table and a variety of styluses. Today, when I am faced with a 78, I approximate by recording at 45 (Shure V15 with 3-mil stylus, correcting as indicated above) and roughly approximate EQ by what's left of my hearing. Needless to say, I make no claim of archival fidelity for the result. Mike [log in to unmask] http://www.mrichter.com/