[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Pitching and Equalization of 78s/Resampling questions.
So, in essence, Mike is using the digital first pass to make the
correction
still within the analog domain, as I suggested initially. I work only
intermittently
in the archival field and I certainly do not have the hard science
background
that many of you have but I can tell you from a modern recording
perspective
that things like "time compression and expansion functions" are almost
never employed in modern sessions because despite what the math may
indicate there are very ugly and noticeable artifacts that emerge from
these
algorithms.
Another question which this thread raises is the question of
re-sampling.
Perhaps I am using the term incorrectly, but every time I have ever
re-sampled
something it was to obtain a different timbral quality. A common
example of this would
be that if I sampled a vamp played on a Fender Rhodes electric piano,
at 16 bit depth, but upon
repeated listening it was apparent that the overall texture was too
"modern" and
too "clean" for the song in question, I would re-sample the part at 8
bit resolution.
This immediately produces more "grain" because now half the number of
samples are being used
to replicate the same sound. However unless I am radically mistaken this
down-sampling did not shorten (or extend )the sample from a time
perspective.
Consequently, while re-sampling is fine to achieve a desired timbral
change
in an instrument or voice I have never heard a temporal dilation device
that
did not produce artifacts which in all candor render the results
virtually
unusable in a pop recording context. I admit that my use of re-sampling
has been for "creative" purposes but I am curious if anyone will step
forward
to say that they have employed resampling to change the pitch/duration
of a recording
and that this process did not impart any unwanted or undesirable
effects to the
final product.
On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 10:45 AM, Mike Richter wrote:
At 12:13 PM 8/28/2003 +0200, George Brock-Nannestad wrote:
From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
This is in reply/comment to Jon Noring, Aaron Luis Stevenson, Goran
Finnberg,
David Seubert, Mike Richter.
1) Pitching of 78s is an activity that requires you to play the same
part of
a record over and over again, while adjusting the speed, and this
causes
demonstrable wear, unless you use an ELP Laser Turntable.
Yes, it requires repeated playing, but no, it does not require that the
disc itself be played repeatedly - only twice. In my own work, I do an
initial transfer, determine pitch correction, then transfer again with
the
correction. The determination requires repeated playing, but that is
done
digitally.
Mike
mrichter@xxxxxxx
http://www.mrichter.com/
Sincerely,
Aaron