The Gadget Show
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


DC shift? Never see any in my transcriptions.


So your system is DC coupled all the way from cartridge to ADC?


David.

The Gadget Show
 

"David Looser" wrote in
message ...
"TT" wrote in message
. au...

"David Looser" wrote in
message
...
"TT" wrote in message
. au...



In Cool Edit Pro when I have a particularly bad click/pop
I expand the
wave form out as far as I can an just cut the offending
piece of noise.
Since we are talking about a very small period of time I
have never
noticed any discontinuity to the resulting wave file.

The discontinuity can create a click, and the whole object
of the exercise
is to get rid of them!

Hearing a missing 0.005sec-0.01sec piece of music
missing is a bit of an
ask ;-)

That's 5-10 msec, I would nomally expect to remove a far
shorter piece of the recording than that, often below 1
msec. Above 3 msec the effect is definitely audible.

I find using any program that does this automatically
just destroys the
music so I therefore do it manually.

If you are talking about 78s then I'd agree with you. But
if you are working from reasonably clean vinyl then you've
got the settings wrong.

One problem with manual removal is finding the clicks in
the first place. High-amplitude clicks are no problem, but
low-level ones,when the click amplitude is lower than that
of the programme material around it, can be the devil's
own job to find. But the software can often still zap
them.

If you are happy restricting yourself to just one
technique fine, but I use
around half-a dozen different techniques, as there is no
one that is "best"
in all circumstances.

David.

I prefer the least amount of processing as possible so I
only go after the very large and obvious pops/clicks.

Cheers TT

The Gadget Show
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...


That was also my recollection. A bucket-brigade delay line stored the
audio which was dropped in to cover the click.


Then you are both wrong. They did consider doing that, but rejected it in
favour of attenuating the signal during the click as it was audibly
superior. There is still a bucket-brigade delay line, but that is to
compensate for the delay in the click-detector. The attenuation is
performed by LDRs.

David.


You may be right, it was a hazy recollection, and the bucket-brigade is
still in there, albeit for another purpose. Whatever method it used, it was
never very popular.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

The Gadget Show
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
That's because you have mastered it as it should be mastered - direct,
with no "post production improvemements" :-)

I doubt there are many commercial CDs which are a copy of the vinyl -
apart from rare stuff.

I don't think that is what David meant.
But there are quite a lot of CDs that were mastered
from metal matrices when analogue tapes were
not available.

'Quite a lot'? I'd say it's pretty rare. Unless you're talking about
recordings made near 60 years ago.


But it does sort of prove how good the medium is - a properly done
copy of vinyl to CD will sound identical to the vinyl. The other way
round not so.

Has this point ever been in dispute?

It certainly has by many who think vinyl inherently better than CD.

--
*Why is the time of day with the slowest traffic called rush hour?

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

The Gadget Show
 

In article ,
David Pitt wrote:
I did see the Gadget Show demo, the question it left me with was how
accurately they had matched the sound levels of the three samples.

I wondered where they got the MP3 version from?

--
*Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food?

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

The Gadget Show
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Any time I've had a chance to compare original to a surface noise
reduced copy I prefer the original.

Cedar makes a very good job of this. A client has compared it
to Windolene:-)

People ofte get the impression that the HF has been reduced when
the surface noise is taken away. There are many early recordings
too in which you can subsequently hear instruments you didn't
know where the-)

You snipped the bit about early stuff with restricted bandwidth which
covered that.

--
*Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary *

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

The Gadget Show
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
That's because you have mastered it as it should be mastered - direct,
with no "post production improvemements" :-)

I doubt there are many commercial CDs which are a copy of the vinyl -
apart from rare stuff.

I don't think that is what David meant.
But there are quite a lot of CDs that were mastered
from metal matrices when analogue tapes were
not available.

'Quite a lot'? I'd say it's pretty rare.

I won't ask you on what experience you base your
statement:-)

Unless you're talking about
recordings made near 60 years ago.

There is quite a lot of 60s and 70s material. The fact is rarely if
ever mentioned on the sleeve. It was found also that polishing
and then washing/rinsing the metal matrix prior to transcription
was detrimental, so they were just cleaned with distilled water
and a soft brush to take away the spider's webs and any
muck that had been acquired during storage.

Decca had a transcription room with a 401 and SME 12"
arm, (the metals are14 inches) and we used to do metal
transcriptions for a number of third party clients. This
type of work is probably not so comnmon any more,
as most catalogue material has already been reissued.



But it does sort of prove how good the medium is - a properly done
copy of vinyl to CD will sound identical to the vinyl. The other way
round not so.

Has this point ever been in dispute?

It certainly has by many who think vinyl inherently better than CD

Do you know of anyone who claims that?
I know of no-one who does not agree that CD
is technically superior. The problem is that
the potential of the medium is abused so
often, with dire results, that people get the
idea that vinyl is better.

Have you listened to the Ray Charles/Count Basie,
and compared the vinyl with the CD. Dave?
As a CD enthusiast, you will be disappointed.
This is not by any means an isolated case.

A Swedish colleague of mine calls this
"a progression in mastering fashion" and
remarks that after the initial problems were sorted out,
some of the most blamelessly mastered pop CDs
were made in the mid-late 80s. Since then, the
medium has often been pushed well past its limits.
And, as the general level of acceptance is gradually
eroded away, less and less people actually care
about it. Louder is better don'tcha know!:-)

Judging by the current levels of pop .mp3 downloads,
people seem to prefer these to CD anyway. The
prediction that only classical and jazz material will
be sold on CD may well prove to be correct.

We live in interesting times:-)

Iain

The Gadget Show
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
David Pitt wrote:
I did see the Gadget Show demo, the question it left me with was how
accurately they had matched the sound levels of the three samples.

I wondered where they got the MP3 version from?


It is important in modern television not to confuse the audience with facts.
All that was said was that the sources were all from a 2003 remix.

http://gadgetshow.five.tv/videos/sound-challenge-part-3

I found the item interesting because I am just starting on the download
thing and am still making my mind up as to whether 320kb/s MP3 downloads are
a satisfactory medium as against flac or a CD. I have found myself, from
time to time, having to resist the conclusion that 320kb/s does sound better
than CD. This is of course impossible, or is it? A factor in all this is the
quality of the replay devices and I am beginning to have doubts about the
more expensive of my two CD players, a Quad.

The Gadget Show did not "prove" anything, it was far too glib for that but
it did illustrate a possible perception.

At a guess I would say that if that test was repeated often enough the
overall result would be close to random.

--
David Pitt

The Gadget Show
 

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...


You may be right, it was a hazy recollection,

I *am* right! Not only do I have a copy of the complete circuit diagram, I
also have a copy of an article written by the designers ("A System for
Reducing Impulsive Noise on Gramophone Reproduction Equipment", published in
"The Radio and Electronic Engineer" Vol 50, No 7)

and the bucket-brigade is still in there, albeit for another purpose.
Whatever method it used, it was never very popular.

Probably due to cost, it would have been quite expensive at the time (1980).

My point was that in the article the designers discuss various options for
removing the click, those considered we

1/ Track & hold the signal for the duration of the click.

2/ Linearly interpolate between "before" and "after" signal amplitudes.

3/ "Real-time editing" (which is what you thought it was)

4/ Low-pass filtering

5/ Attenuation of signal and noise.

And their conclusion was that number 5 was the least-worst in terms of
audible damage to the signal.

David.

The Gadget Show
 

"TT" wrote in message
. au...


I prefer the least amount of processing as possible so I only go after the
very large and obvious pops/clicks.


Fair enough, that's your choice. Personally I find any audible click
annoying and prefer to remove as many as possible, so long as I can do so
without causing other audible damage to the audio. Attempting to clean-up
really badly damaged records, particularly 78s, can be worse than not doing
anything.

David.