 |
 |
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