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