"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:24:36 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:



You can use the dual mono signal quite handily. Put it into your audio
software and use the facility (which most have) of centre channel or
vocal extraction. That way you will lose the spitches (which are 99%
left or right, but never centre),

Also if you need to do any real repairs to remove a pop, you can
select the option to copy and paste from one channel to the other.

The click energy can be mostly in the L, R, difference or sum channels
depending on how the damage was done. In the case of a click that is mainly
L or R then a copy & paste from the "good" channel to the "bad" can be very
effective, when the click energy is mainly difference averaging the signal
can largely eliminate it. But there are a hard core (far more than 1%) of
cases when none of those work, and we are back to removing the click the
hard way.

Then save it as pure mono, and it will halve the file size.

And will remove a lot (though nothing like 99%) of the surface crackle and
much of the distortion.

David.

"Don Pearce" wrote


You can use the dual mono signal quite handily. Put it into your audio
software and use the facility (which most have) of centre channel or
vocal extraction. That way you will lose the spitches (which are 99%
left or right, but never centre), and keep the good stuff.


That is what I suspect happens automatically when the capture is set to
'mono' and the file is saved as such - I can't see any facilities in the
software to enable you to choose it as a process..??



Also if you need to do any real repairs to remove a pop, you can
select the option to copy and paste from one channel to the other.


Serious pops are easily removed in SoundForge; it's the continuous crackle
that can be a nuisance (if it bothers you), but I am hoping for a
breakthrough *offlist* on that a little later on.

Might be worth a mention that the 'mono' clips I posted are off the Brubeck
'Jazz Goes To College' album which dates from 1954 - my copy is an original
Columbia CL566 in stunning condition. Neither of those clips have had any
cleaning whatsoever!



Then save it as pure mono, and it will halve the file size.


Yes - another bonus of mono recordings.

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:13:50 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


You can use the dual mono signal quite handily. Put it into your audio
software and use the facility (which most have) of centre channel or
vocal extraction. That way you will lose the spitches (which are 99%
left or right, but never centre), and keep the good stuff.


That is what I suspect happens automatically when the capture is set to
'mono' and the file is saved as such - I can't see any facilities in the
software to enable you to choose it as a process..??

Nope, it will just add the two channels together. The crackling will
become a little less evident because it is now coming from the same
spot as the music, and a bit better hidden than when it was separated
spatially.

I don't know what Sound Forge (is that what you use?) does. It is
there in Audition.



Also if you need to do any real repairs to remove a pop, you can
select the option to copy and paste from one channel to the other.


Serious pops are easily removed in SoundForge; it's the continuous crackle
that can be a nuisance (if it bothers you), but I am hoping for a
breakthrough *offlist* on that a little later on.


Is this what you are after?

http://81.174.169.10/odds/DBnoclicks.mp3

I used Izotope RX to do that. If I had some groove noise without music
to sample, I could have got rid of loads more.

Might be worth a mention that the 'mono' clips I posted are off the Brubeck
'Jazz Goes To College' album which dates from 1954 - my copy is an original
Columbia CL566 in stunning condition. Neither of those clips have had any
cleaning whatsoever!


Remarkably good given the age.



Then save it as pure mono, and it will halve the file size.


Yes - another bonus of mono recordings.



But not what I would describe as a selling point.

d

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:13:50 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


You can use the dual mono signal quite handily. Put it into your audio
software and use the facility (which most have) of centre channel or
vocal extraction. That way you will lose the spitches (which are 99%
left or right, but never centre), and keep the good stuff.


That is what I suspect happens automatically when the capture is set to
'mono' and the file is saved as such - I can't see any facilities in the
software to enable you to choose it as a process..??

Nope, it will just add the two channels together. The crackling will
become a little less evident because it is now coming from the same
spot as the music, and a bit better hidden than when it was separated
spatially.


OK, that's really what I said originally.



I don't know what Sound Forge (is that what you use?) does. It is
there in Audition.


I've not looked at it since I stopped combining Swim's se[parate clart and
piano recordings - I find SoundForge just too handy for chopping up and
trimming recordings and the easy removing of serious pops and farts.



Is this what you are after?

http://81.174.169.10/odds/DBnoclicks.mp3


Yes, that is nice - seems this sort of software has come on a bit since I
first heard it!



I used Izotope RX to do that. If I had some groove noise without music
to sample, I could have got rid of loads more.


OK. I've noted the name (and found the download sites) - thanks for the
tip....

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:36:25 -0000, Don Pearce wrote:

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:13:50 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


You can use the dual mono signal quite handily. Put it into your audio
software and use the facility (which most have) of centre channel or
vocal extraction. That way you will lose the spitches (which are 99%
left or right, but never centre), and keep the good stuff.


That is what I suspect happens automatically when the capture is set to
'mono' and the file is saved as such - I can't see any facilities in the
software to enable you to choose it as a process..??

Nope, it will just add the two channels together. The crackling will
become a little less evident because it is now coming from the same
spot as the music, and a bit better hidden than when it was separated
spatially.

I don't know what Sound Forge (is that what you use?) does. It is
there in Audition.


Don - this is actually something that is unique to Audition as far as I
know. The Centre Channel Extractor is much cleverer than it may first
appear as it actually looks at the correlation between channels and leaves
(or removes) signals with the correlation that you choose.

Cheers

James.


--
http://www.jrpmusic.net

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:03:14 -0000, "James Perrett"
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:36:25 -0000, Don Pearce wrote:

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:13:50 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


You can use the dual mono signal quite handily. Put it into your audio
software and use the facility (which most have) of centre channel or
vocal extraction. That way you will lose the spitches (which are 99%
left or right, but never centre), and keep the good stuff.


That is what I suspect happens automatically when the capture is set to
'mono' and the file is saved as such - I can't see any facilities in the
software to enable you to choose it as a process..??

Nope, it will just add the two channels together. The crackling will
become a little less evident because it is now coming from the same
spot as the music, and a bit better hidden than when it was separated
spatially.

I don't know what Sound Forge (is that what you use?) does. It is
there in Audition.


Don - this is actually something that is unique to Audition as far as I
know. The Centre Channel Extractor is much cleverer than it may first
appear as it actually looks at the correlation between channels and leaves
(or removes) signals with the correlation that you choose.

Cheers

James.

Is that so? I didn't know it was unique. I really only use Audition
because I have sort of grown up with it throughout its CoolEdit
incarnations, and I now use it more or less by instinct.

d

"Don Pearce" wrote



Is this what you are after?

http://81.174.169.10/odds/DBnoclicks.mp3

I used Izotope RX to do that. If I had some groove noise without music
to sample, I could have got rid of loads more.



OK, I've got a copy of Izotope RX on the go and have made a pretty close
copy using only the Declicker with the following settings:

Quality = High

Sensitivity = 3.0

Max Click Width = 2.0 ms


Is this anything like your settings? Other than the quality setting, mine
are pretty much 'out of the box' - I'll experiment with it as time goes on,
naturally.

Also, did you use any other process? They didn't seem too relevant to me at
this point, other than 'Rectal Repair' which seemed like a possibly good
idea some time in the future...??

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:49:15 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote



Is this what you are after?

http://81.174.169.10/odds/DBnoclicks.mp3

I used Izotope RX to do that. If I had some groove noise without music
to sample, I could have got rid of loads more.



OK, I've got a copy of Izotope RX on the go and have made a pretty close
copy using only the Declicker with the following settings:

Quality = High

Sensitivity = 3.0

Max Click Width = 2.0 ms


I used the default settings, whatever they were.

Is this anything like your settings? Other than the quality setting, mine
are pretty much 'out of the box' - I'll experiment with it as time goes on,
naturally.

Also, did you use any other process? They didn't seem too relevant to me at
this point, other than 'Rectal Repair' which seemed like a possibly good
idea some time in the future...??


The spectral repair thing does work given the right circumstances. It
uses the audio either side of a major piece of damage to fill in the
gap. So it works really well during a legato passage, but don't bother
trying it on a piece of Messaien.

The denoiser and hum removal work really well. Make sure to set the
hum remover to 50Hz - it comes as 60Hz as default.

The declipper works just like every declipper I ever saw - the
waveform looks convincing, but generally sounds no better.

One of the best buttons is the second one of the right hand group.
With this one you can select a small piece from the spectral display
and remove it. I used it the other day to get rid of some blackbird
song that got itself all over a recording.

d

Well, I prefer mono after recording so at least out of phase crackles are
removed, and nasty wear artefacts do not spread over the sound stage.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Keith G" wrote in message
...
I have a number of (predominantly jazz) mono albums I want to 'digitise'
and they present me with an interesting dilmma - whether to record them as
'dual mono' or 'mono mono'..??

So, is there any convention or meaningful reason why they should not be
recorded as 'dual mono' if I choose, or indeed is there any merit in
recording them thus?? One thing I notice is the spitchy bits (no cleaning
on these samples) are nicely moved into the middle and in some way buried
in the mono transcriptions, but I do hear other interesting differences!

Here are a couple of near-identical samples to compa

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/DBdualmono.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/DBmonomono.mp3

Anyone with any thoughts?

TIA, as usual....

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
. ..
Well, I prefer mono after recording so at least out of phase crackles are
removed, and nasty wear artefacts do not spread over the sound stage.


There are times when 'stereo' helps (large scale, orchestral) but most of
the time it's a gimmick I don't *have* to have, I find!! Done badly (20 foot
wide pianos and ping pong solo instruments) it is atrocious and has me
reaching for the 'mono button' I haven't got on any of my amps!!

Said it before - I do a lot (if not most) of my listening 'off axis'
anyway!!

But then, that's just me!! ;-)