The idea of continual switching to the quieter channel of a mono source is 
much different from the way Cedar, SF, etc, operate.

The Packburn works best by a considerable amount if it receives a flat 
signal.  The more high end it sees, the better it can tell a click from 
program.  All eq should be added later. That means bypassing the eq in the 
feed preamp.

Like much analog equipment, it functions best using more than one pass for 
extreme cases, resetting parameters a bit each time.    This is true for 
analog equalizers as well, except it is usually more practical to gang them. 
The down side is living with the consequences of more than one tape 

The Packburn patents have now expired.  It would be interesting to hear this 
process function in a digital setting.  I discussed this idea with Tom 
Packard after Dick Burn's memorial service.  At the time he seemed 
uninterested.  Where does this go from here?

Steve Smolian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 7:48 AM

> One man's opinions here ...
> I've had pretty good luck with old grooved media (78's and early LP's) as 
> far as ticks and pops by focusing on deep-cleaning the disks first and 
> foremost. I've been surprised to find that except for badly damaged disks, 
> 78's are not as prone to constant and annoying ticks and pops as vinyl. I 
> don't mess with badly damaged disks of either type unless they are highly 
> unique -- usually, given that my time messing with them has a monetary 
> value, it is more cost-effective to find a better-condition specimen. 
> However, in those few cases where I've had very problematic disks, as long 
> as I can keep the needle in the groove I still find that, by a very great 
> amount, the best fix for ticks and pops as far as audibility is the tried 
> and true manually-fix method. In Sony Soundforge, practice and experience 
> have taught me to zoom in on the ticks and pops and repaint the waveform 
> using the pencil tool. Practice teaches you how to do this for barely 
> audible or inaudible results. This is as time-consuming a method as exists 
> except perhaps editing out microseconds with a blade and splicing tape 
> (done that, hope to never do that again). But, the results can be superb 
> if you use experience, learning and your ears to shoot for removal with no 
> new artifacts.
> As for non-badly-damaged disks, my own taste is to put up with some 
> crackle and a few low-level ticks and pops. Why try and mitigate what's 
> inherent to the medium? If I make a transfer, of course I'll go in and 
> manually fix the few big ticks and pops, but not go in and grab every 
> little disk-noise thing.
> As far as feeding the Packburn, has anyone tried a flat-with-gain 
> preamplifier, then feed the output of the Packburn thru an appropriate EQ 
> filter, either as a piece of analog gear or in the computer? I would 
> think, with no EQ, the Packburn would have the best shot at NR, but I 
> might be wrong on that. Plan B would be to make sure and use the 
> appropriate phono-preamp curve before the Packburn, so it is getting the 
> intended frequency spectrum to work on. Then adjust for minimum artifacts 
> and be satisfied that what you're hearing is as good as you're going to 
> get out of that chain of equipment and stop worrying about it.
> But, circling back to my first point, starting with thorough cleaning of 
> the grooved media has always been my strongest ally in either a good 
> transfer or a pleasant listening experience, or both.
> -- Tom Fine
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jan Myren" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 4:06 AM
> HI Again!
> May it be an idea to take the signal from the Packburn into a paramertic
> equaliser and try to reduce some of the surface noise that way??
> Hope to hear from you...
> Best regards
> Jan
> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
> Fra: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] På vegne av George Brock-Nannestad
> Sendt: 22. mars 2009 02:44
> Til: [log in to unmask]
> From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
> Hi everybody,
> Jan Myren described his Packburn setup and seems quite satisfied. I did 
> not
> know that it had an "undo RIAA" feature in its later versions, but I 
> assure
> you that the Packburn switcher works even better if the treble is not 
> rolled
> of like RIAA does.
> In cooperation with John R.T. Davies Ted Kendall has developed what they
> used
> to call "the Mousetrap" that used components that were 25 years younger 
> than
> those of Packard and Burns, although the basic switcher idea was the same. 
> I
> do not know whether that is incorporated in Ted's "the Front End"
> preamplifier that has many useful features. It is only built to order.
> Jan asked:
>> BUT; Since I think the Packburn works well on clicks and pops; do you 
>> know
>> if the engineers from the "analogue remaster area" like Robert Parker,
>> also used a second noise reduction system to get rid of more of that
> surface
>> noise, or did they just use it "as is" and accepted a fair amount of
>> surface noise on their LP-compilations?
> ----- if I remember correctly, Robert Parker artificially boosted the high
> frequencies by generating distortion by having an elliptical stylus with 
> the
> long axis along the groove. This permitted/indeed REQUIRED very heavy 
> treble
> filtering to remove the distortion (and any noise from 78s), so that he 
> had
> a
> lot of fundamentals. Any lack of brilliance was counteracted by heavy
> reverb.
> All in all disgusting results, but John R.T. was forgiving: "it will
> advertise that there is plenty of interesting material in these old 
> records,
> and those who want to engross themselves will go to the sources".
>> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
>> Fra: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] På vegne av ADRIAN COSENTINI
>> Sendt: 21. mars 2009 20:13
>> Til: [log in to unmask]
>> Hi Jan,
>> When I was the Chief Audio Engineer at The Rodgers & Hammerstein
>> archives we had a number of Packburns, and we never used them,
>> because they sounded like shit, to put it mildly. Now a days with all
>> the digital noise reduction programs out there why aren't you using
>> that? Also why on earth are you using a RIAA curve on 78's?! You're
>> missing most of the sound. A KAB pre-amp would be much better, even
>> though I'm not crazy about the pre-set curves. The OWL 1 is way
>> better to dial in the curves. Good luck finding one of those. Anyway
>> toss the Packburn and the RIAA curve.
>> Adrian
>> On Mar 21, 2009, at 11:32 AM, Jan Myren wrote:
>> > About Packburn 323 Audio Noise Suppressor
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > HI; I have learned that you for many years (and probably still) use
>> > the
>> > Packburn for playback and recording from old 78 rpm discs.
>> >
>> > Since I am a collector of old 78's and have a big collection of
>> > records from
>> > all ages. I have also spent some recourses on good equipment and I
>> > think
>> > this Packburn would be the correct analogue device to my set-up.
>> >
>> > I have a Thorens TD 521 turnable. The arm is a SME 3012R and the
>> > cartridge
>> > is a Stanton 500MKII and some different stylis, all special made for
>> > playback of old 78's! I use a normal NAD RIIA preamp.
>> >
>> > My experience so far is that it works very well on clicks and pops
>> > using the
>> > switcher and the blanker. But the continous noise filter bugs me a
>> > bit,
>> > since I think it doesn't reduce that much surface noise. I don't
>> > use the
>> > variable adjust very often, since the so called "masked-noise" and the
>> > pumping effect bring offer "strange noises" to the sound. Therefore
>> > I mostly
>> > use the FIXED adjust, and usually set it fixed at 9 o'clock posititon.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I have read that some re-issue engineers, like Robert Parker used the
>> > Packburn 323A frequently when restoring old 78's for LP and CD-
>> > releases.
>> >
>> > MY main question is if the Packburn was used as a "stand alone"
>> > unit or it
>> > was also supplied with other noise reduction units in order to
>> > filter out
>> > more of the surface noise. If so, what did they (or you) actually
>> > do and
>> > what could eventually be a good supplement for that purpose?
>> >
>> > I would really appreciate if any of you would please give me some
>> > hints and
>> > suggestions, since I think the Packburn will work very well if used
>> > the
>> > right way!
>> >
>> > Really hope to hear from you again!!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Best regards
>> >
>> > Jan Myren¨
>> >
>> >
>> >