From: liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
Tobiah wrote:
> > I could start a thread on an analogue declicking computer for 78s,
> > which I am currently designing, but the number of participants would
> > probably be very limited.
>
> You might be surprised. Is it working? How does
> its performance compare to digital solutions.
The performance on old and worn 78s is superior to any of the digital
methods I have heard so far, although it needs skilled operation to
achieve this. It also works on a par with CEDAR on badly worn mono
microgroove records. It is less effective than CEDAR on good-condition
LPs and 45 rpm singles and will not work on stereo recordings at all.
As my original brief was to de-click and de-crackle 78s, I feel it has
been a success from my particular point of view.
The prototype, which was built to test the basic principle, has been
working in commercial use for over 30 years. A second version was
built for another commercial studio specialising in the re-issue of
historic opera and that worked successfully for over 10 years until the
proprietor died and the firm closed down.
One of the biggest improvements, which was made very early on, was to
split the sound into two frequency bands and operate on them separately
before recombining them. In particular this reduced the audibility of
the intermodulation cause by gaps in the wanted audio. I have always
wanted to split the spectrum into octave bands so that any
intermodulation and distortion by-products fall outside the band filter
for each channel. In theory this should give much better results in
unskilled hands. Currently I am building a new machine to test out the
theory.
If you want to know more detail, I am happy to give it but it does
require some background knowledge of analogue electronics.
--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
