[Table of Contents]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ARSCLIST] SV: [ARSCLIST] Equaliser for playback of 78's

Hi Jan.

Instead of altering the bandwidth with not-so-good hardware, I'd recommend a
way of getting your signals as unaltered as possible, into a computer and
manipulate it from there.

Have you considered using Audacity or other Open Source software for your
projects ?

The reason for bringing computers into this, is because a lot if not all
restored old recordings are picked up in an analogue manner and afterwards
restored/altered/processed/enhanced by the skills of audio technicians using
computers and software.

I'd say, go with computers for your projects. Good luck.

Venligst/Kindest regards/Mfg
Brian Hougaard Baldersbæk

->-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
->Fra: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
->[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx]På; vegne af Jan Myren
->Sendt: 23. maj 2009 20:23
->Til: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
->Emne: [ARSCLIST] Equaliser for playback of 78's
->HI again!
->Thanks for many really interesting replys!
->By the way I got an EQ, a Technics Stereo Universal Frequency
->Equaliser, the
->SH-9010. Guess it's a vintage, but still great unit.
->Look here:
->This has 2x 5 bands; 60 / 240 /1 k / 4k / 16Khz and +/- 12 dB and can also
->adjust bandwith and frequency. Each "band" can be adjusted
->separately, so it
->is really flexible.
->Do you think it may be an idea to "slider" the 16Khz all the way down?
->By the way I have connected it after a Packburn 323A audio noise
->What do you think about this?
->Best regards
->-----Opprinnelig melding-----
->Fra: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
->[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] På vegne av Tom Fine
->Sendt: 23. mai 2009 13:10
->Til: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
->Emne: Re: [ARSCLIST] DBX for playback of 78s
->One man's opinions, experiences, YMMV, etc. ...
->Steve is right that a graphic EQ is helpful, and I also think a
->preamp with
->adjustable turnover and
->rolloff is very necessary. Dial in what sounds best for casual listening,
->dial in what's truest to
->the source for archival tranfers. On later-era 78's, there can be musical
->content at 12K and even
->higher. For acoustic era, there is nothing even at 8K in almost all cases.
->The thing is, not graphic
->EQ just lops off at the stated frequency, they all have a curve that bends
->up or down over a bunch
->more frequencies below and above the target frequency, so tune by ear.
->A box of shellacs picked up at a 2nd hand store are just not
->going to sound
->like a modern reissue CD
->made from metal parts. You will never achieve the low noise level and low
->distortion level of
->primary source material. Manufactured shellacs vary in quality from quite
->amazingly clear to fuzzy
->noise-hash messes. It depends on the manufacturer and manufacture date and
->how the thing has been
->stored these many decades.
->Of course, cleaning a shellac before playing is key. Deep cleaning the
->groove eliminates many ticks
->and pops and can reduce background hash. You can use a
->vacuum/scrub machine
->(use the appropriate
->cleaning fluid and change the brush and vacuum pad before doing LPs), or a
->simple soft sponge and
->Ivory dish soap works. Rinse thoroughly and pat dry. And of course wet the
->record before sponge-ing
->it. Those blue shammy clothes sold at record-sleeve online stores are a
->great finish-dry cloth.
->Store the cleaned records in new sleeves; as kewl as those ancient
->brown-wrinkled sleeves are, they
->are not appropriate for storage after decades of dust and casual storage.
->Steve is also right about bass content. It's usually a compromise between
->rumble reduction and
->legitimate bass content, tune to ear's preferences.
->As for dbx (Jan was obviously asking about the companders like
->3BX and 2BX,
->not the closed-loop NR
->system), and the Phase Linear 1000 for that matter, they can help if used
->very carefully, especially
->on non-music content like transcriptions. Very conservative, very careful,
->they can reduce
->background hash a little bit. But, any modern digital NR will do a better
->job if used properly.
->Again, one man's opinions, experiences, YMMV, etc.
->-- Tom Fine
->----- Original Message -----
->From: "Steven C. Barr" <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
->To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
->Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 10:55 PM
->Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] DBX for playback of 78s
->> ----- Original Message -----
->> From: "John Eberle" <JEb45ACP@xxxxxxx>
->>> Here is my take on this : DBX Noise reduction is an encode in
->>> and decode in playback system designed to reduce tape noise in
->>> professional recording studios . There was an attempt by DBX
->to interest
->the  record
->>> industry in a version designed to be used in the mastering of
->45s and lps
->>> the decode unit was to be incorporated
->>> into the preamp or the playback  system . The company I was working for
->>> the time , Nashville Record  Productions in Music City USA was given an
->>> onsite demo of this system and it was  considered by many
->>> in the industry for adoption as it was quite effective.
->>> The big drawback to the DBX record system and the reason for  its'
->>> lack of acceptance was that the DBX encoded record was most unpleasant
->>> listen to on a playback system that did not have the DBX
->>> decoder ; making  compatibility in the market place a big problem
->> I always found that the most useful tool for listening to 78rpm
->> was a standard (and cheaply available these days) 10-band equalizer.
->> Obviously, more advanced eq's (if one can afford them?!) would be of
->> better use!
->> At any rate, 78rpm phonorecords of the 1889-195? era basically had a
->> "bandwidth" (frequency response) of around 50-6000 kHz. THAT is
->> what is on the original recording (although it MIGHT be possible to
->> recreate "implied" notes via a computer?!).
->> I always set my eq to chop the upper octave (no recorded content
->> there!) and the lower couple of octaves (three for acoustic originals!)
->> for the same reason!
->> One caveat! Apparently, the bass response of early-electrical-era
->> 78's was MUCH lower than one might expect; I have MANY
->> pipe-organ recordings (Jesse Crawford et al) mage in that era
->> which exhibit AMAZING low-end content...!!
->> Steven C. Barr

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]