 |
 |
Ah yes, the old "epoxy encasement patent." In that case, one would need to dissect and reverse engineer. Given the niche market, I doubt such an effort is feasible. -- Tom Fine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Smolian" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] SV: [ARSCLIST] SV: [ARSCLIST] PACKBURN 323A > Alas! There is one assumption that is incorrect. The Packburn schematic had little boxes where > the specialized circuits shouh have been. And the parts numbers were sanded off some components. > > Steve Smolian > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 11:46 AM > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] SV: [ARSCLIST] SV: [ARSCLIST] PACKBURN 323A > > >> You'd want to take the digital idea to someone who's expert at modelling plug-ins. Someone like >> Dave Amels (sp?) who designed the Bomb Factory stuff, now he models tube stuff if I recall >> correctly. These guys can take a schematic of a Packburn or any other devise, plug it into their >> modelling software and then tweak the parameters to make the DSP do what the electrical >> components do to their expert satisfaction. Much easier described than done! Whether or not they >> are successful is up to your own ears. I have been very impressed with some DSP stuff and very >> unimpressed with other. So far, no DSP NR except in very small doses has been preferable to my >> aural aesthetic, but that's just one man's opinion. My beef is that digital artifacts, >> particularly high-end swishes or crackles or sizzles, are worse and more annoying than the tape >> hiss or other background noise being removed. As far as impulse-removal, the problem is digital >> "holes" in the sound, although some of the more modern DSP implimentations seem better at this if >> used with taste and extreme moderation. It all depends on how you listen. Play a piano record for >> a piano player and he likely couldn't care less where the piano is sitting in the "air and space" >> or how close-in it is compared to other instruments behind it, he's concentrating on the piano >> playing. Many but not all superb musicians I know -- some members of pretigious symphonies or >> performing groups -- have what an audio engineer would probably consider to be an awful playback >> system. My point is, all of this stuff is very subjective and there's more than one way to do any >> of it. >> >> The Packburn design is interesting in that part of it is sorta the same concept as the old Scott >> noise-reduction system but Tom Packard told me that they specifically worked around the Scott >> patents in order to gain their own patents. He also told me that he's working on a lower-cost >> version. >> >> Regarding Steve's confirmation that flat-with-gain is the best "diet" to feed a Packburn, this is >> not a hard preamp to create. You can even use a mic preamp if you can bypass the 600-ohm input >> transformer, or more appropriately replace it with something where the cartridge sees 47K-ohms if >> that's what it wants to see. I am not familiar enough with the Packburn to know if it has a >> low-level output to directly feed a phono preamp with EQ. >> >> -- Tom Fine >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Steven Smolian" <[log in to unmask]> >> To: <[log in to unmask]> >> Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 10:16 AM >> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] SV: [ARSCLIST] SV: [ARSCLIST] PACKBURN 323A >> >> >>> 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 generation >>> >>> 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 >>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] SV: [ARSCLIST] SV: [ARSCLIST] PACKBURN 323A >>> >>> >>>> 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 >>>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] SV: [ARSCLIST] SV: [ARSCLIST] PACKBURN 323A >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> NORWAY >>>> >>>> -----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] >>>> Emne: Re: [ARSCLIST] SV: [ARSCLIST] PACKBURN 323A >>>> >>>> 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] >>>>> Emne: Re: [ARSCLIST] PACKBURN 323A >>>>> >>>>> 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¨ >>>>> > >>>>> > NORWAY >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> >> >