Print

Print


I've thought for some time that there's already a way to do this with
at least some recordings.

For years, film restorers have used multiple prints of films, taking
the best quality sections from each that survive, sometime
substituting small sections in a print that has been damaged.

Why couldn't that be done with recordings where multiple copies survive?

Basically, what the software would do is let you take multiple sound
files sourced from different copies of the same record.  Each will
have been damaged and degraded in different ways and have different
patterns of noise.

The software, after synching the recordings, would compare them and
"toss out" the noise and keeping commonalities between the copies.
The more copies of the recording you have available, the better the
result might be, at least theoretically.

Why couldn't this work?

rand

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Steve:
>
> I agree with you in general, but I'm talking about recordings where analog
> playback has produced poor results -- for instance the badly worn and
> super-rare Paramount blues records. No transfer I've heard using analog
> playback and whatever digi-trix the producer decided to use has produced
> very good-sounding results.
>
> I think the pot of gold at the end of the research rainbow for  non-physical
> playback of grooved media is the ability to "erase" all the noise that comes
> from the media itself, and of damage to the media. Then, in theory (and
> sometime in the future) you'd just be reproducing the information originally
> cut into the groove.
>
> For now, I wouldn't worry about your transfer business (or mine) being under
> dire threat. But I hope I live long enough to see the day when putting a
> needle to an old groove for critical playback or transfer is considered
> obsolete.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>