CHLO-E
 

Despite spending much of my time recording
editing an mixing in the digital domain, one
of my favourite "music reproducers" is still a
vintage HMV gramophone.

In a radio in interview (1960's ?) Fred Hager who
had been musical director with OkeH Records from
1920 to about 1940, talked about acoustic recording
and the transition from the first vertical cuts in 1916
to lateral cut which had become the standard by
1920, at which time the record's rotation speed was
agreed - 78.26 rpm.

Then in April 1925 the first electrical recording was
released on the Victor label. This was a quantum
leap, but it is unfortunate that the shellac format hides
from the listener how good these old recordings
actually were. But digital restoration can do a
great deal to show us how they must have sounded
when the original waxes were recorded.

Here is "Chlo-E" one of my favourite early
recordings by the Duke Ellington Orchestra.

Firstly, the original 78rpm shellac recorded
from the HMV gramophone with a
thorn needle, and a Neumann U47.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/Iain.Churches/Music/Chloe01.mp3

Then my digitally "restored" version using CEDAR

http://www.kolumbus.fi/Iain.Churches/Music/Chloe02.mp3


Enjoy

Iain

CHLO-E
 

On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 17:06:12 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

Despite spending much of my time recording
editing an mixing in the digital domain, one
of my favourite "music reproducers" is still a
vintage HMV gramophone.

In a radio in interview (1960's ?) Fred Hager who
had been musical director with OkeH Records from
1920 to about 1940, talked about acoustic recording
and the transition from the first vertical cuts in 1916
to lateral cut which had become the standard by
1920, at which time the record's rotation speed was
agreed - 78.26 rpm.

Then in April 1925 the first electrical recording was
released on the Victor label. This was a quantum
leap, but it is unfortunate that the shellac format hides
from the listener how good these old recordings
actually were. But digital restoration can do a
great deal to show us how they must have sounded
when the original waxes were recorded.

Here is "Chlo-E" one of my favourite early
recordings by the Duke Ellington Orchestra.

Firstly, the original 78rpm shellac recorded
from the HMV gramophone with a
thorn needle, and a Neumann U47.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/Iain.Churches/Music/Chloe01.mp3

Then my digitally "restored" version using CEDAR

http://www.kolumbus.fi/Iain.Churches/Music/Chloe02.mp3


Enjoy

Iain

These show an interesting psychological effect. There is almost no top
in the original music, but add a bit of hiss and crackle, and our
brains shape it into the missing sibilants (or whatever), despite the
fact that it is there continuously.

Having said that, I still prefer the cleaned version.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

CHLO-E
 

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
These show an interesting psychological effect. There is almost no top
in the original music, but add a bit of hiss and crackle, and our
brains shape it into the missing sibilants (or whatever), despite the
fact that it is there continuously.

Having said that, I still prefer the cleaned version.

Real fun was transferring a badly scratched record to tape and cutting out
the clicks with a razor blade. ;-)

--
*I'm planning to be spontaneous tomorrow *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

CHLO-E
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Real fun was transferring a badly scratched record to tape and cutting out
the clicks with a razor blade. ;-)

Indeed. De-clicking was the standard procedure for shellac records
that were being reissued on LP. But they still had their shellac surface
noise which could not be removed with EQ without adversely affecting
the music.

Iain

CHLO-E
 

On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 00:55:13 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
These show an interesting psychological effect. There is almost no top
in the original music, but add a bit of hiss and crackle, and our
brains shape it into the missing sibilants (or whatever), despite the
fact that it is there continuously.

Having said that, I still prefer the cleaned version.

Real fun was transferring a badly scratched record to tape and cutting out
the clicks with a razor blade. ;-)

But do the job thoroughly and you could cut Wagner's Ring des
Niebelungen down to twenty minutes. So not all bad.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

CHLO-E
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

Real fun was transferring a badly scratched record to tape and cutting
out the clicks with a razor blade. ;-)

A couple of years ago I bought a number of second-hand LPs from a pop-up
shop which was in town for about six months. Typically 3 quid per LP, and
the Jazz examples proved to be in better condition than the pop or
classical ones. So I mostly bought jazz. I'm still working occasionally on
transferring and declicking them.

One was a double LP of Roy Eldridge. This has a number of noticable, very
brief. fade-out-and-in events. My impression is that someone removed clicks
by some method that simply magnetically 'wiped' very short sections of a
tape they'd made from the 78s.

Did anyone ever do anything like that? Or would it be that they'd cut and
spliced out the clicks with a noticable lack of overlap?

IIRC The LPs were from the 1970s.

FWIW I've recently been transferring and de-clicking some Ellington 'Radio
Transcriptions' discs released on Decca London in the late 1970s. These are
remarkably good compared with what you'd expect from commercial 78s from
the time (1946-7). Sadly, the shop only had volumes 1-4 so I didn't get
volume 5. But not bad for 3 quid a pop. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

CHLO-E
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

My impression is that someone removed clicks
by some method that simply magnetically 'wiped' very short sections of a
tape they'd made from the 78s.

Did anyone ever do anything like that? Or would it be that they'd cut and
spliced out the clicks with a noticable lack of overlap?

IIRC The LPs were from the 1970s.

Yes, I am familiar with this technique. It was known as dissolving.

The declicking method to which Dave refers was frowned upon,
(but nonetheless widely done!) and referred to as "destructive editing"
as one not only removed the click but the music underneath it.
No self-respecting editor would want to do such work, so it was usually
given to trainees, who were instructed to "keep all the bits" (which they
did,
numbered with white chinagraph pencil, and stuck to the front of the tape
machine with editing tape in the right order, until their engineer or
producer
approved the job)

FWIW I've recently been transferring and de-clicking some Ellington 'Radio
Transcriptions' discs released on Decca London in the late 1970s. These
are
remarkably good compared with what you'd expect from commercial 78s from
the time (1946-7). Sadly, the shop only had volumes 1-4 so I didn't get
volume 5. But not bad for 3 quid a pop. :-)

Those transcriptions were probably made from the original
polyacetate cuts, which were 14 inch and very low noise,
so no shellac involved.

In 1941/2 when shellac was in very short supply,
some 78s were issued on ean early form of vinyl.
They sounded rather good:-)

BTW, Jim if you are interested in early Ellington, look out for a double CD
called
The OKeh Ellington. The recording as beautifully restored and presented by
Columbia.
Highly recommended.

https://www.amazon.com/Okeh-Ellingto.../dp/B00000274L

Iain.

CHLO-E
 

In message , Jim Lesurf
writes

Sadly, the shop only had volumes 1-4 so I didn't get
volume 5. But not bad for 3 quid a pop. :-)

Six copies of Volume 5 currently available via eBay :-)
--
Graeme

CHLO-E
 

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

My impression is that someone removed clicks by some method that
simply magnetically 'wiped' very short sections of a tape they'd made
from the 78s.

Did anyone ever do anything like that? Or would it be that they'd cut
and spliced out the clicks with a noticable lack of overlap?

IIRC The LPs were from the 1970s.

Yes, I am familiar with this technique. It was known as dissolving.

Thanks. Previously, I'd taken for granted that in the era of tape people
would always use tape splicing. But maybe some people found 'dissolving'
easier. When listening at first it sounded like odd dropouts due to
something like dirt on the tape. But when I looked at the waveforms the
thought came to me that it was a deliberate erasure.


BTW, Jim if you are interested in early Ellington, look out for a double
CD called The OKeh Ellington. The recording as beautifully restored
and presented by Columbia. Highly recommended.

https://www.amazon.com/Okeh-Ellingto.../dp/B00000274L

Thanks. :-)

My knowledge of jazz has always been sketchy, alas. My best mate when young
was a fan of Swing Big Band music, mainly 1940s. I did learn a little from
that - but mainly the predictable Miller, Goodman, etc. For the rest of
jazz I've had to just discover particular types and styles, etc, ad hoc,
over the years. And when young could only afford an occasional LP, so
avoided risking a waste of money when there was a long list of non-Jazz
things I knew I'd like once I could get them!

So, yes, I do like Ellington, Basie, etc. But until relatively recently
knew little below the most 'well-known' names. The pop-up shop was perfect
for me as the LPs were cheap enough that I could buy a wider range and find
more things. Including things I'd assumed I might *not* like, but did.
However I also bought various Ellington and Basie LPs.

Alas, the shop was there on a month-by-month rental whilst the owners of
the property looked for someone willing to take out a long lease. I think
they actually just brought along the stuff that wasn't 'in demand'. But had
lots of unsorted boxes of jazz LPs at 3 quid a go.

A continuing problem from my POV is the lack of a decent magazine for Jazz
equivalent to something like The Gramophone or a *shop* which lists Jazz
CDs, etc. I still prefer to buy from a know dealer who I can sometimes
discuss things with before I buy. I'd prefer a local shop whose profits
stay in the economy and pays their local taxes, etc, as well. Indeed, I'd
still wish we have shops locally where I could browse for such things. If
there were, I'd buy more than I have done.

Agree with your comment wrt the Transcription Discs. I've also been
impressed by a collection of items from 'V Discs' that I bought a few years
ago.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

CHLO-E
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Yes, I am familiar with this technique. It was known as dissolving.

Thanks. Previously, I'd taken for granted that in the era of tape people
would always use tape splicing. But maybe some people found 'dissolving'
easier. When listening at first it sounded like odd dropouts due to
something like dirt on the tape. But when I looked at the waveforms the
thought came to me that it was a deliberate erasure.

In broadcast is was known as spot erasing. Some pro machines had this
facility - although more commonly used on one track of a multitrack. With
caution. ;-)

--
*We never really grow up, we only learn how to act in public.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

CHLO-E
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
The declicking method to which Dave refers was frowned upon,
(but nonetheless widely done!) and referred to as "destructive editing"
as one not only removed the click but the music underneath it.

Very true Iain. Now inform us just how you removed such clicks in the
analogue days long before you had a computer to do the work for you?

No self-respecting editor would want to do such work, so it was usually
given to trainees, who were instructed to "keep all the bits" (which
they did, numbered with white chinagraph pencil, and stuck to the front
of the tape machine with editing tape in the right order, until their
engineer or producer approved the job)

Ah. Forgot you never worked in the real world of broadcast. ;-)

--
*I got a job at a bakery because I kneaded dough.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

CHLO-E
 

On 05/01/2017 12:27, Graeme wrote:
In message , Jim Lesurf
writes

Sadly, the shop only had volumes 1-4 so I didn't get
volume 5. But not bad for 3 quid a pop. :-)

Six copies of Volume 5 currently available via eBay :-)

Two copies should be sufficient.
As the clicks will be in different places, you should be able to choose
the best bits of each. :-)

--
Eiron.

CHLO-E
 

In article ,
Eiron wrote:
On 05/01/2017 12:27, Graeme wrote:
In message , Jim Lesurf
writes

Sadly, the shop only had volumes 1-4 so I didn't get
volume 5. But not bad for 3 quid a pop. :-)

Six copies of Volume 5 currently available via eBay :-)

Two copies should be sufficient.
As the clicks will be in different places, you should be able to choose
the best bits of each. :-)

Quite. The one and only time I've cut clicks out of an LP was on one even
the various broadcast libraries couldn't find another of. It was for an
ITV schools' broadcast with no budget to have it specially recorded. Won
an international Emmy too - but not for the music. ;-)

--
*If at first you don't succeed, redefine success.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

CHLO-E
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
The one and only time I've cut clicks out of an LP was on one even the
various broadcast libraries couldn't find another of. It was for an ITV
schools' broadcast with no budget to have it specially recorded. Won an
international Emmy too - but not for the music. ;-)

I make digital transcriptions for various reasons.

1) To remove clicks from old LPs.

2) To avoid the need to have to play the same LP again, risking added wear
to my ancient Shure styli, etc.

3) Convenience of being able to play the results in rooms where I don't
have the record deck.

Some of the second-hand LPs I bought are worn and so still sound lousy. But
others - after a careful declicking - sound very good. And I find it easier
to relax and enjoy the music when I'm not anticipating rifle shot
accompaniment.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

CHLO-E
 

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
Six copies of Volume 5 currently available via eBay :-)

Two copies should be sufficient.
As the clicks will be in different places, you should be able to choose
the best bits of each. :-)


A cigar for that man:-)

Multiple copies of the original form the basis of
every good audio restoration project.


Iain

CHLO-E
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Yes, I am familiar with this technique. It was known as dissolving.

Thanks. Previously, I'd taken for granted that in the era of tape people
would always use tape splicing. But maybe some people found 'dissolving'
easier. When listening at first it sounded like odd dropouts due to
something like dirt on the tape. But when I looked at the waveforms the
thought came to me that it was a deliberate erasure.

In broadcast is was known as spot erasing. Some pro machines had this
facility - although more commonly used on one track of a multitrack. With
caution. ;-)


Spot erasing was a totally different thing, and used to
remove wrong notes or wrong beats (snare, BD, hi-hat, etc)
from one specific track on a multitrack machine. It left a
"hole" in the audio, which, in listening, was covered by
materal from other tracks. Spot erasure on a mono
or stereo tape, was, for obvious reasons, not an option.

Dissolving, a totally different technique, produced a cross fade
and was used exclusively on mono or stereo quarter in tapes, which
is what we are talking about here.

Iain

CHLO-E
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
The declicking method to which Dave refers was frowned upon,
(but nonetheless widely done!) and referred to as "destructive editing"
as one not only removed the click but the music underneath it.

Very true Iain. Now inform us just how you removed such clicks in the
analogue days long before you had a computer to do the work for you?

No self-respecting editor would want to do such work, so it was usually
given to trainees, who were instructed to "keep all the bits" (which
they did, numbered with white chinagraph pencil, and stuck to the front
of the tape machine with editing tape in the right order, until their
engineer or producer approved the job)

Ah. Forgot you never worked in the real world of broadcast. ;-)

No. Thought I have recorded countless project
that have been broadcast. But not quite the same
thing:-)

When I was thinking about a career, I found that,
using three criteria, training, salary levels and
prospects, broadcast came right at the bottom
of the league table.

Besides, I wanted to work in a company
were things were done properly.
In the "real world of broadcast", your plexi
screens around drummers, and lapel mics stuck
to the bridges of violins with BluTack, were
clearly not optimum solutions:-)

Iain

CHLO-E
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

The one and only time I've cut clicks out of an LP was on one even
the various broadcast libraries couldn't find another of. It was for an
ITV schools' broadcast with no budget to have it specially recorded.

Why did you not simply ask the record company for a 15ips Dolby A
tape copy from the master? These were always supplied very quickly
at no cost to broadcast. We used to send tapes to BH almost daily,
and even paid the courier:-)

This would have saved the cost of your LP transcription, declicking,
leadering etc.

It's a pity you didn't do it properly.

Iain

CHLO-E
 

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 17:06:12 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

[24 lines snipped]

Firstly, the original 78rpm shellac recorded
from the HMV gramophone with a
thorn needle, and a Neumann U47.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/Iain.Churches/Music/Chloe01.mp3

Then my digitally "restored" version using CEDAR

http://www.kolumbus.fi/Iain.Churches/Music/Chloe02.mp3

Wow.

My "party piece" is to cue up a track on CD of the same mono
title, a few bars in. Then I take a 78rpm original recording,
and place that on the gramophone. I start the gramophone,
and at a predetermined point, and cue the CD player.

The room is filled with "ambiosonics". The two systems keep
quite well in sync. The trick is to know when, and just how much
to wind the gramophone to retain reasonable synchronisation
through a 3 minute title:-)

Iain

CHLO-E
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

These show an interesting psychological effect. There is almost no top
in the original music, but add a bit of hiss and crackle, and our
brains shape it into the missing sibilants (or whatever), despite the
fact that it is there continuously.

How true. Some people comment on the apparent loss of hf on the
restored version. In actual fact the frequency response of the recording
systems in those days was approx 100Hz to 5kHz (five and a half octaves)
so there never was any real hf to speak of.

It is interesting too how the internal balance of the recording seems to
improve when the noise artifacts are removed. In this case the rhythm
guitar.

Iain

CHLO-E
 

On 05/01/2017 09:39, Jim Lesurf wrote:

snip

FWIW I've recently been transferring and de-clicking some Ellington 'Radio
Transcriptions' discs released on Decca London in the late 1970s.

Do you do it manually, in a sound file editor, and 'flatten the spikes'?
I've done that a few times, and the results are pretty good.

Or is there a decent software solution?


--
Cheers, Rob

CHLO-E
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Yes, I am familiar with this technique. It was known as dissolving.

Thanks. Previously, I'd taken for granted that in the era of tape
people would always use tape splicing. But maybe some people found
'dissolving' easier. When listening at first it sounded like odd
dropouts due to something like dirt on the tape. But when I looked at
the waveforms the thought came to me that it was a deliberate erasure.

In broadcast is was known as spot erasing. Some pro machines had this
facility - although more commonly used on one track of a multitrack.
With caution. ;-)


Spot erasing was a totally different thing, and used to
remove wrong notes or wrong beats (snare, BD, hi-hat, etc)
from one specific track on a multitrack machine. It left a
"hole" in the audio, which, in listening, was covered by
materal from other tracks. Spot erasure on a mono
or stereo tape, was, for obvious reasons, not an option.

Dissolving, a totally different technique, produced a cross fade
and was used exclusively on mono or stereo quarter in tapes, which
is what we are talking about here.

You mean effectively electronic editing? Please explain how this could be
use to remove clicks from an LP after transferring to tape?

--
*And the cardiologist' s diet: - If it tastes good spit it out.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

CHLO-E
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
No self-respecting editor would want to do such work, so it was usually
given to trainees, who were instructed to "keep all the bits" (which
they did, numbered with white chinagraph pencil, and stuck to the front
of the tape machine with editing tape in the right order, until their
engineer or producer approved the job)

Ah. Forgot you never worked in the real world of broadcast. ;-)

No. Thought I have recorded countless project
that have been broadcast. But not quite the same
thing:-)

No it's not. You might have endless time available to do something. For
broadcast, the clock is usually ticking. If only for cost reasons.

When I was thinking about a career, I found that,
using three criteria, training, salary levels and
prospects, broadcast came right at the bottom
of the league table.

I'm glad you made the right choice for you, Iain. Others might enjoy the
challenge of working in broadcast. In much the same way as some may prefer
working on a live concert to recording a performance in a studio.

Besides, I wanted to work in a company
were things were done properly.
In the "real world of broadcast", your plexi
screens around drummers, and lapel mics stuck
to the bridges of violins with BluTack, were
clearly not optimum solutions:-)

You never attend live music events, then?

--
*A fool and his money can throw one hell of a party.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

CHLO-E
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

The one and only time I've cut clicks out of an LP was on one even
the various broadcast libraries couldn't find another of. It was for an
ITV schools' broadcast with no budget to have it specially recorded.

Why did you not simply ask the record company for a 15ips Dolby A
tape copy from the master? These were always supplied very quickly
at no cost to broadcast. We used to send tapes to BH almost daily,
and even paid the courier:-)

Tee hee.

This would have saved the cost of your LP transcription, declicking,
leadering etc.

It's a pity you didn't do it properly.

Pity you don't have a clue about the LP in question. Or indeed the
timescale involved.

--
*Oh, what a tangled website we weave when first we practice *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

CHLO-E
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
The one and only time I've cut clicks out of an LP was on one even the
various broadcast libraries couldn't find another of. It was for an ITV
schools' broadcast with no budget to have it specially recorded. Won an
international Emmy too - but not for the music. ;-)

I make digital transcriptions for various reasons.

1) To remove clicks from old LPs.

2) To avoid the need to have to play the same LP again, risking added
wear to my ancient Shure styli, etc.

3) Convenience of being able to play the results in rooms where I don't
have the record deck.

Some of the second-hand LPs I bought are worn and so still sound lousy.
But others - after a careful declicking - sound very good. And I find it
easier to relax and enjoy the music when I'm not anticipating rifle shot
accompaniment.

Yes - all very valid. I did look up the date of the prog I was talking
about - 1986. So rather before digital audio workstations became common.
Although the company I worked for had bought its first AudioFile by then.
But that was fully occupied dubbing 'The Bill' ;-)

--
*Velcro - what a rip off!*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

CHLO-E
 

In article , RJH
wrote:
On 05/01/2017 09:39, Jim Lesurf wrote:

snip

FWIW I've recently been transferring and de-clicking some Ellington
'Radio Transcriptions' discs released on Decca London in the late
1970s.

Do you do it manually, in a sound file editor, and 'flatten the spikes'?
I've done that a few times, and the results are pretty good.

Or is there a decent software solution?

Mostly I use the 'repair' function that Audacity provides. This is limited
to a max of 128 samples per channel. But in effect it examines the patterns
either side of the selected series and attempts to do a smooth
interpolation of the shapes.

Since I record the LPs as 96k/24 that means it is limited to problems that
aren't longer than about 1.3-ish ms.

That works fine for me in most cases. The main exceptions are much longer
crunches or bangs, or clicks that leave a long LF 'tail'. For them I might
accept doing a snip. Although I suspect they might be easier to fix if the
digital recording was done without RIAA I've never bothered. The above
works fine in most cases. for me.

In practice I find I rarely need to snip out a section or use some other
means. The 'repair' generally produces a result where I can't hear any
problem once I've chosen the right start and end points.

The main 'trick' I use is to use sox to generate a high-pass filtered
version of a recording. Usually second order with a turnover around 5kHz. I
then load that into Audacity alongside the recording to be declicked. The
filtered version helps some smaller clicks to stand out, so they act as a
guide to 'find the Lady' if in the full recording the click is hiding in
the audio waveforms. It also shows more clearly the HF departures from a
smooth shape, so aids deciding the start and end points for an optimal
repair.

Caution: If you do the above make sure to take care *not* to save the
result in a way that adds back in the hf filtered version! 8-]

There are automated ways to do this. However I'm happy with the above, and
it also serves as an excuse to have a close listen to the recordings as I
'work on them'. :-) So it is usually fun and an interesting challenge
rather than a chore. No-one is paying me, I'm just doing it because I
prefer to.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

CHLO-E
 

On 06/01/2017 15:17, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Mostly I use the 'repair' function that Audacity provides. This is limited
to a max of 128 samples per channel. But in effect it examines the patterns
either side of the selected series and attempts to do a smooth
interpolation of the shapes.

Since I record the LPs as 96k/24 that means it is limited to problems that
aren't longer than about 1.3-ish ms.

I use Adobe Audition and 88.2k/24 instead, but the principle is the
same. Audition has a sizeable licence fee, but I inherited a copy when a
project was canned.

88.2k not 96k as they are going to CDs, and I think the down-sampling
must be simpler.

Andy

CHLO-E
 

On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 22:45:04 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 06/01/2017 15:17, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Mostly I use the 'repair' function that Audacity provides. This is limited
to a max of 128 samples per channel. But in effect it examines the patterns
either side of the selected series and attempts to do a smooth
interpolation of the shapes.

Since I record the LPs as 96k/24 that means it is limited to problems that
aren't longer than about 1.3-ish ms.

I use Adobe Audition and 88.2k/24 instead, but the principle is the
same. Audition has a sizeable licence fee, but I inherited a copy when a
project was canned.

88.2k not 96k as they are going to CDs, and I think the down-sampling
must be simpler.

You'd think it might be simpler, but in fact the same algorithm is
used. But this is something Audition (inherited from its life as
CoolEdit Pro) does particularly well, with almost no artifacts.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

CHLO-E
 

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
I use Adobe Audition and 88.2k/24 instead, but the principle is the
same. Audition has a sizeable licence fee, but I inherited a copy when
a project was canned.

88.2k not 96k as they are going to CDs, and I think the down-sampling
must be simpler.

You'd think it might be simpler, but in fact the same algorithm is used.
But this is something Audition (inherited from its life as CoolEdit Pro)
does particularly well, with almost no artifacts.

I wouldn't be surprised if both used the same resampling code as sox. This
is based on what used to be called the "Secret Rabbit Code" and can do
arbitrary rate conversions quite well. However I tend to use sox for rate
conversions, filtering, etc. Just use Audacity for dealing with clicks.

FWIW I did do some sample-by-sample comparisons on the results of using
Audacity to do this on 96k/24 files. And confirmed that the results were
identical except for the 'repaired' sections.

I'd probably also use 88.2k if the end-aim was Audio CD. But since I'm
leaving the results as 96k/24 (in flac) this isn't a concern for me.
However I'd agree that 2:1 ratio conversions are relatively simple to do
well. What may be unknown, though, is how a given ADC operates when
outputting different rates. Some may run at a high *fixed* rate and do
their own internal downsampling. In such cases you may be better off using
a sample rate for the capture that is a simple scale factor down from that
internal rate. Devil in the details.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

CHLO-E
 

On 01/06/2017 12:13 PM, Iain Churches wrote:
"Eiron" wrote in message
...
Six copies of Volume 5 currently available via eBay :-)

Two copies should be sufficient.
As the clicks will be in different places, you should be able to choose
the best bits of each. :-)


A cigar for that man:-)

Multiple copies of the original form the basis of
every good audio restoration project.

Question as a layman, I presume you have to phase lock or somehow
otherwise sync the two recordings very accurately. Or do people pick
the best recording and just splice the second track as and when required
to cover the worse bits?

Pete

CHLO-E
 

"Peter Chant" wrote in message
...
On 01/06/2017 12:13 PM, Iain Churches wrote:
"Eiron" wrote in message
...
Six copies of Volume 5 currently available via eBay :-)

Two copies should be sufficient.
As the clicks will be in different places, you should be able to choose
the best bits of each. :-)


A cigar for that man:-)

Multiple copies of the original form the basis of
every good audio restoration project.

Question as a layman, I presume you have to phase lock or somehow
otherwise sync the two recordings very accurately. Or do people pick
the best recording and just splice the second track as and when required
to cover the worse bits?


No the two copy machines do not need to be
synchronised, (although it is agood idea to use
two identical recorders if possible), as you are
cutting between them.

What is important though, is that they be level
matched so that you can cut between them
without any perceptible level changes.

The second "B" tape is only required as a backup,
so that you don't have to go back to stage one,
(shellac pressing, gramophone and microphone)
if the edit does not go as planned.

Iain

CHLO-E
 

On 06/01/2017 15:17, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , RJH
wrote:
On 05/01/2017 09:39, Jim Lesurf wrote:

snip

FWIW I've recently been transferring and de-clicking some Ellington
'Radio Transcriptions' discs released on Decca London in the late
1970s.

Do you do it manually, in a sound file editor, and 'flatten the spikes'?
I've done that a few times, and the results are pretty good.

Or is there a decent software solution?

Mostly I use the 'repair' function that Audacity provides. This is limited
to a max of 128 samples per channel. But in effect it examines the patterns
either side of the selected series and attempts to do a smooth
interpolation of the shapes.

snip useful guide

Thanks for that - interesting. FWIW I used to (haven't done it in a
while) open the file in (say) Audacity and take out clicks and pops by
eye using the draw tool, and flattening the spikes. especially effective
in lead-in/run-out.

Will certainly give your method a try when and if, though. I'm wondering
if the Repair command is a recent addition . . .


--
Cheers, Rob

CHLO-E
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

The declicking method to which Dave refers was frowned upon,
(but nonetheless widely done!) and referred to as "destructive editing"
as one not only removed the click but the music underneath it.

Very true Iain. Now inform us just how you removed such clicks in the
analogue days long before you had a computer to do the work for you?


Surely this is something with which, as a former
broadcast pro from the analog era, you should be
very familiar?

The UK is fortunate to have a number of people
with exceptional skills in audio restoration.
Back in the day, I worked and shared ideas
with the best of them. Restoration has always
been something of a black art, with "wet transfer"
solutions mixed by hand to one's own recipe:-)

Most musicians, and anyone else who can count a
bar in demi-demi-semi-quavers will spot your
destructive editing instantly, Dave, and berate
you loudly for it, so it should be avoided.

It is essential to have access to as many copies
of the original as you can lay your hands on.
Quite often metal matrices (mothers) were still
available. These were an excellent source of
cleanish audio and helped to speed up the
process. But, you could not mix shellac and
metals as a source for the same title.

As a rule of thumb, I used to transfer any shellac
pre 1946 with an acoustic gramophone and a
large capsule Neumann microphone, 47 or 49.
Later recordings, 1946-1955 were transferred
electrically. I was fortunate that the studio had a
very well equipped pick-up lab run by a very
knowledgeable chap who could suggest and
provide the best combinations for the job in hand.

At least three good shellac pressings were required.
We used to clean and rinse them meticulously, using
plenty of distilled water, a droplet of liquid detergent,
and a soft toothbrush. Cleaning agents, and transfer
lubricants used in vinyl transfer were not considered
suitable for shellac, so I never used them. The amount
of muck that came out of the groove never ceased to
amaze me!!. Just cleaning was a major step in improving
the quality. Peter Lewis, who was a veteran while
I was still learning my craft, introduced me to "Songster"
trailer needles which sounded good. I later developed
a preference for thorn and fibre needles, which could be
used once only before sharpening.

The next stage was to listen to the three shellac pressings
and put them in order by condition. We used to zero tape
machine timer and then note down the times of the clicks
on each version. For the transfers, two quarter-inch recorders
running at 30 ips with full-track (mono) heads and Dolby A 361,
level matched, were needed. These machines had specially
made editing blocks to enable long oblique splices. The audio
from each of the shellac pressings was recorded to both
machines. The tape from the A machine was used to make
up the master, with material from the B machine being used
for backup, and also for "build-outs" if you were unfortunate
enough not to have a clean copy to cover a particular passage.

Then you just need to count bars. If you could find
a transfer with an intro having say four click-free bars,
this was cut out and moved to a third tape machine
on which you were assembling the master. Then you
moved to the second or third transfer, counting bars,
and used a section of that from say bar five,until the
next click. This way, a good composite master could
be edited together, click free. Some titles need
several edits per bar.

Material recorded at 30 ips made editing easier.
The method was "non-destructive", and the
demi-demi-semi-quaver toe-tappers were kept
happy.

Iain

CHLO-E
 

In article , RJH
wrote:

Thanks for that - interesting. FWIW I used to (haven't done it in a
while) open the file in (say) Audacity and take out clicks and pops by
eye using the draw tool, and flattening the spikes. especially effective
in lead-in/run-out.

Will certainly give your method a try when and if, though. I'm wondering
if the Repair command is a recent addition . . .

I've been using it for some years now, so I doubt it is very recent. You
may have to look for it in a submenu, though. Afraid I've forgotten where
it is in the GUI menus. I map it to the ' ctrl R' keys for convenience.

Where needed: For reducing noise during leadin / etc I tend to use the
'Amplify' effect with a gain of, say, -70dB. Then apply a fade in or fade
out at the boundaries between this and sections of music to avoid any
abrupt level changes.

I have occasionally used the 'hand draw', but don't really have much
confidence in that. But if the crunch has a very long duration I tend to
sigh and snip it out. Then do a 'repair' over the join to smooth it. This
is quite rarely needed, though.

FWIW when I snip a section I try to find start and end points which are a
few cycles apart and have - ideally - the same amplitudes and slopes either
side of the removed section. This also helps avoid any clicks or bumps at
the join.

I have thought/hoped that Audacity might have some way to base a repair of
one channel on the other channel's waveform. Sometimes a click or bang is
only on one channel and that might produce a decent result. e.g. on a mono
disc. But I've not found such a tool. So this would need to be done by
other means.

Alas, I don't have the luxury of multiple versions of an LP. Just the 3
quid ones I bought recently, or my own ancient ones. I'm sure a pro would
do a better job. But it still often makes a real difference, so worth
doing.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

CHLO-E
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
It is essential to have access to as many copies
of the original as you can lay your hands on.
Quite often metal matrices (mothers) were still
available. These were an excellent source of
cleanish audio and helped to speed up the
process. But, you could not mix shellac and
metals as a source for the same title.

You could actually read my post before replying.

You sound like the Irishman when asked for direction who says:-

'If I were you, I wouldn't start from here'

--
*If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

CHLO-E
 

On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 14:48:17 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , RJH
wrote:

Thanks for that - interesting. FWIW I used to (haven't done it in a
while) open the file in (say) Audacity and take out clicks and pops by
eye using the draw tool, and flattening the spikes. especially effective
in lead-in/run-out.

Will certainly give your method a try when and if, though. I'm wondering
if the Repair command is a recent addition . . .

I've been using it for some years now, so I doubt it is very recent. You
may have to look for it in a submenu, though. Afraid I've forgotten where
it is in the GUI menus. I map it to the ' ctrl R' keys for convenience.

Where needed: For reducing noise during leadin / etc I tend to use the
'Amplify' effect with a gain of, say, -70dB. Then apply a fade in or fade
out at the boundaries between this and sections of music to avoid any
abrupt level changes.

I have occasionally used the 'hand draw', but don't really have much
confidence in that. But if the crunch has a very long duration I tend to
sigh and snip it out. Then do a 'repair' over the join to smooth it. This
is quite rarely needed, though.

FWIW when I snip a section I try to find start and end points which are a
few cycles apart and have - ideally - the same amplitudes and slopes either
side of the removed section. This also helps avoid any clicks or bumps at
the join.

I have thought/hoped that Audacity might have some way to base a repair of
one channel on the other channel's waveform. Sometimes a click or bang is
only on one channel and that might produce a decent result. e.g. on a mono
disc. But I've not found such a tool. So this would need to be done by
other means.

Alas, I don't have the luxury of multiple versions of an LP. Just the 3
quid ones I bought recently, or my own ancient ones. I'm sure a pro would
do a better job. But it still often makes a real difference, so worth
doing.

Jim

Some interesting experiments with different SRC methods he

http://www.channld.com/pure-vinyl_src.html

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

CHLO-E
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
It is essential to have access to as many copies
of the original as you can lay your hands on.
Quite often metal matrices (mothers) were still
available. These were an excellent source of
cleanish audio and helped to speed up the
process. But, you could not mix shellac and
metals as a source for the same title.

You could actually read my post before replying.

My reply was to illustrate why you should not simply
declick (shorten) an analogue tape in the way you did.
and answered your question:

" Now inform us just how you removed such clicks in the
analogue days long before you had a computer to do the work for you?"

Iain

CHLO-E
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,

In the "real world of broadcast", your plexi
screens around drummers, and lapel mics stuck
to the bridges of violins with BluTack, were
clearly not optimum solutions:-)

You never attend live music events, then?

Frequently. Often too as a player.

I play in both a classical ensemble and a big band.

I alaso mix FOH for a theatre musical group. So
probably altogether some thirty plus events a year,
and not a plexi screen or lump of BluTack in sight:-)

Iain

CHLO-E
 

On 08/01/2017 09:47, Jim Lesurf wrote:
What may be unknown, though, is how a given ADC operates when
outputting different rates. Some may run at a high *fixed* rate and do
their own internal downsampling. In such cases you may be better off using
a sample rate for the capture that is a simple scale factor down from that
internal rate.

I inherited a pretty good 24 channel DAC too. (Motu). I've never used
more than 2 channels...

Andy

CHLO-E
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

FWIW I've recently been transferring and de-clicking some Ellington 'Radio
Transcriptions' discs released on Decca London in the late 1970s. These
are
remarkably good compared with what you'd expect from commercial 78s from
the time (1946-7). Sadly, the shop only had volumes 1-4 so I didn't get
volume 5. But not bad for 3 quid a pop. :-)

You seem to have found an excellent source for
interesting music at a very reasonable price.

Do you clean the LP's before transfer?

Many shops that sell vinyl have a recording cleaning machine.
My favourite shop charges 1e (which includes a cup of
coffee whiole you wait)

Some public libraries also offer the same service (but no
coffee:-)

Iain