Print

Print


I used to do this paint trick but with a grease pencil.  Of course you had 
to clean the heads occassionally.

Steve Smolian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Doug Pomeroy" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] De-clicking


> Tom,
>
> Of course I would have worked with the source discs if they have been 
> available to me. But sometimes you are given someone else's transfers and 
> that's all you are going to get!
>
> I tried something similar years ago, using a plastic paint (Hyplar) which 
> I would apply very carefully in a very thin line, using a very small paint 
> brush, onto the oxide surface over the area of the click.  This actually 
> worked - it wouldn't totally remove the click but would reduce its level 
> dramatically since the paint would effectively lift the tape off the 
> playback head by a microscopic amount.
>
> Of course, the computer allows us to isolate clicks with great accuracy 
> and to lower them down to the level of the surrounding suface noise.  I do 
> this all the time, but of course it doesn't always work, due to the nature 
> of the underlying music at any given moment.  This is only one of several 
> techniques which digital editing allows, especially when a stereo transfer 
> is made of a mono recording.
>
> Doug Pomeroy
> Pomeroy Audio
> --------------------------------------
>
>>From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>>Reply-To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List 
>><[log in to unmask]>
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] De-clicking
>>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:31:01 -0400
>>
>>Hi Doug:
>>
>>Thanks for the further info. I had never heard of this oxide-scraping 
>>technique until today.
>>
>>Now you have me curious, so a followup. How come you'd be working with old 
>>tapes from Davies and Towers instead of their source disks? Are there 
>>cases where an old disk-to-tape transfer is preferable to going back to 
>>the disk, or is it more likely the case that the original disk is lost or 
>>destroyed?
>>
>>Finally, like I said I only did the tape method very little and have done 
>>almost all of this kind of work in the computer. I learned from standing 
>>over Art Shifrin's shoulder when he was working on some problematic disk 
>>transfers. For loud ticks and pops in spoken word, it's usually OK to just 
>>zoom in far enough to grab the microsecond of waveform and zap it. I was 
>>surprised in one case that I zapped 50 such waveforms, spending a solid 4 
>>hours at it, and it eliminated all of ... 1.5 seconds from the program 
>>time! In a half-hour spoken-word program, this is undetectable. When it 
>>comes to music, it's not so simple. I've found that human beings' own 
>>time-counting is "musical" (ie non-robotic, ie imprecise) enough that some 
>>of these ticks and pops can be zapped, especially in pauses. Where it 
>>doesn't work is in percussion notes or even a fast stacatto (sp?) of any 
>>acoustic instrument. Back when I first got into computer-aided audio, I 
>>would select the tick/pop waveform and reduce its level to something lower 
>>than the surrounding music and that usually made it quiet enough to not be 
>>detrimental to the listening experience. Then Art taught me how to write 
>>out short ticks and pops by learning how to recognize what the correct 
>>waveform SHOULD be and simply writing it in using the pencil tool in 
>>Soundforge. This works great with what I call a linear disturbance --  ie 
>>when the needle doesn't jump the groove but merely rides over a scratch or 
>>piece of crud or little vinyl zit. When the needle jumps the groove like 
>>with a gouge or a big vinyl zit, all bets are off because there is no 
>>underlying music to mimick. I try to avoid records in that bad shape but 
>>sometimes you get 'em. After years of doing this, I've come to the 
>>conclusion that the most natural-sounding solution is just reduce the pop 
>>waveform to the level of the accompanying music. Any listener to a disk 
>>transfer will know that the medium is mechanical and thus there will be 
>>surface noises on even the best examples. That said, I'd love to see the 
>>waveforms coming out of a laser turntable on similar surface injuries. I 
>>would guess they'd be similar because a gouge or a big vinyl zit is a 
>>manufacturing or handling error that actually destroys part of the groove, 
>>so there can by fact be no underlying music to patch in. By the way, I 
>>know a musician would cringe at this, but there have been a few cases 
>>where the players so carefully replicate a phrase in its repeated passage 
>>that I've been known to "loop" the undamaged phrase over where there was a 
>>bad surface injury. The only time this has worked is when the phrase is 
>>repeated so perfectly that there is no time-shift. Some musicians are 
>>amazingly accurate with this, and yet don't sound robotic like a 
>>synthesizer.
>>
>>-- Tom Fine
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Pomeroy" 
>><[log in to unmask]>
>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 8:28 PM
>>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] De-clicking
>>
>>
>>>Hi Tom,
>>>
>>>I assume the reference to "Jack" is a reference to Jack Towers.
>>>He will tell you he got the oxide scraping technique from discussions
>>>with the late John RT Davies. I have worked with some of John's tapes,
>>>and I can report his scraping was VERY carefully done.  I have also 
>>>worked
>>>with some of Jack's tapes, and I have to say Jack usually took off too 
>>>much
>>>oxide, producing an obvious dropout; I had to fix lots of these, using
>>>crossfades, or by careful deletion of part of the audible silence.
>>>
>>>doug pomeroy
>>>
>>>>From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>Reply-To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List 
>>>><[log in to unmask]>
>>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] De-clicking
>>>>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:52:44 -0400
>>>>
>>>>Hi Parker:
>>>>
>>>>I'm sorry, I misunderstood what you were describing. Now I understand. 
>>>>That would absolutely work, but what an art form! Wow, I wonder what 
>>>>Jack experimented on to learn the art.
>>>>
>>>>-- Tom Fine
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Parker Dinkins" 
>>>><[log in to unmask]>
>>>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 8:14 AM
>>>>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] De-clicking
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>on 7/26/07 8:06 PM US/Central, Tom Fine at [log in to unmask]
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>But if you do Jack's method, you're left with the same problem as 
>>>>>>Terry -- a
>>>>>>microsecond of blank space, which is just as noticeable and annoying 
>>>>>>as the
>>>>>>click.
>>>>>
>>>>>By scraping off only the precise moment of the click, you're in effect
>>>>>creating a high speed fadeout and fade-in. It's audible, but less 
>>>>>annoying
>>>>>than the click itself.
>>>>>
>>>>>There's an overview of analog and digital de-clicking at
>>>>>http://www.cedaraudio.com/intro/declick_intro.html - but without a
>>>>>description of manually scraping off the oxide.
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Parker Dinkins
>>>>>MasterDigital Corporation
>>>>>Audio Restoration + CD Mastering
>>>>>http://masterdigital.com
>>>>>
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>http://liveearth.msn.com
>>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> http://newlivehotmail.com