[Dixielandjazz] Transfering 78s >> T'aint Simple But A Fun Challenge

[D and R Hardie]

Hi all
Audacity does have the capacity to change pitch
Dan Hardie
On Sunday, April 9, 2006, at 12:08  AM, BudTuba at aol.com wrote:

>
> In a message dated 4/7/2006 10:32:00 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> anton.crouch at optusnet.com.au writes:
>
> The  procedure is to record the 78 disc to the computer at 45 rpm and  
> then
> correct the pitch using an audio editor. I don't know if CoolEdit  
> and/or
> Audacity have this capacity but some editors certainly do. The  process
> assumes that the signal is coming to the computer pre-amplified and
> equalised.
>
> If you are (dare I use the word?) an audiophile, you may  also want to
> correct the equalisation error introduced by the 45 to 78  process.
>
>
>
>
> Even IF you have a turntable with 78 RPM speed, recording the old  
> 78's at 45
> RPM is has advantages because the dynamics of turntable  buffeting the
> tonehead back and forth and the intensities of clicks increases  with 
> speed.  The
> frequencies of noise due to scratches and worn grooves is  also 
> relatively
> constant regardless of speed so when the frequency is restored  back 
> up by
> converting back by a 78/45 ratio, many of those sounds  disappear in 
> the upper end and
> can be further reduced by equalization  filters.  (Anyone wanting to 
> know the
> exact steps I take with Cool Edit can  contact me offline for 
> instructions
> and samples.)
>
> One might argue that playing the 78's at 45 RPM makes the low end 
> suffer,
> but I have not found that to be the case as long as you have decent 
> cartridge on
>  the tonearm.  The 78's were limited at the low end to about 150
> cycles/second and that becomes (45/78)*150 = 86 cps which is well 
> above the  response
> range of hi-fi cartridges.
>
> Another factor in transferring 78's is how to best remove scratches and
> digs.  I have found that recording in stereo is anther prudent choice  
> because
> even though 78's were monophonic, some defects will affect one side  
> of the
> groove more than the other.  Therefore in some cases, just copying  
> the clearer
> side of the stereo tracks to both tracks can make garbled passages  
> sound better.
>  Cool Edit has a good scratch filter, but the time to apply  it can be 
> fairly
> extensive.  Consider that a 3 minute recording becomes  5.20 minutes 
> long as
> recorded at 45 RPM, the removal of scratches and digs  (which is done
> mathematically by the program inchworming only and looking at the  
> waveform), can take
> several minutes longer than the 5 minutes depending on how  high you 
> set the
> discrimination level.  Of course, this depends on the  speed at which 
> your
> computer can operate, but as a rule of thumb, if you record  at 44,100 
> cps and
> your computer operates at 500 mHz and 10 instructions of code  are 
> required by
> the computer to assess one sample of the groove and more  instructions 
> to
> remove one scratch once encountered (my guess) then your  computer is 
> inchworming
> along the groove at 50 mHz or approximately at same rate  that your 
> recording
> was laid down. (50,000 cps ~ 44,100 cps).  A 78  with a lot of noise 
> takes
> longer than one that is quiet.
>
> Consequently, I looked around for other programs for removing  
> scratches and
> clicks and found Ray Gun Pro.  This works on a different  engineering
> principle called Fourier transform applicationand finds the defects  
> faster than
> inchworming.  Again, one needs to experiment to determine the  best 
> settings, but I
> have found that by setting the scratch removal part of Ray  Gun at 50 
> percent
> maximum, that the proof sound of the desired recording sounds  
> minimally
> changed by the Ray Gun algorithms.  This is conveniently done by  
> pressing the
> PROOF button and listening back and forth with and without the  
> algorithm
> applied.  Used in this fashion, Ray Gun leaves a few scratches  that 
> still need to be
> removed by Cool Edit, but many of those are visually  apparent as thin 
> spikes
> when you look at the waveform and can be removed  manually or again
> automatically by Cool Edit, this time working on a cleaner  recording.
>
> Finally, my take on EQUALIZATION:  I tend to use equalization  with 
> the goal
> of making the recording as pleasing to me as possible rather  than a 
> strict
> adherence to restoration.  Especially in the early days of  recording, 
> people
> expected a rather thin sound from their records made and  played 
> acoustically.
> So I suppose that trying to create a resultant that  duplicates that 
> total
> aural response may be technically correct.  However,  there is sonic 
> signal  that
> can be differentially amplified by  equalization curves to sound more 
> like
> the sound in the recording room must  have been.  Of course, one man's 
> pleasure
> can be another's poison, but I  find that raising the low frequencies 
> from 100
> cps to about 400 and then  flattening off the response to about 10000 
> cps
> will enhance the final product  for me then rapidly lowering the 
> response over
> 10000 cps.  This also takes  experimentation and even asking unbiased 
> listeners
> to pick which resultant they  like best (if you are attempting to 
> produce CDs
> for further distribution to  others).  I suspect Dick Broadie spent 
> many an
> hour tweaking knobs for the  excellent restorations he has made with 
> reliving
> the experience of listening to  the early bands had they been recorded 
> with
> modern equipment.
>
>
> Roy (Bud) Taylor
> Smugtown Stompers Jazz Band
> 'we ain't just  whistlin' dixie!"
> 585-415-3985  Cell
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dixielandjazz mailing list
> Dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com
> http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/dixielandjazz
>