Re: [ARSCLIST] Analog to digital capture question

[Don Cox <doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 22/11/06, Tom Fine wrote:
> REgarding Karl's post about ticks and pops, my opinion about record
> surface noise is this:

All very good advice.

 
> 1. I don't even bother with badly damaged or really badly made LPs.
> Forget it. It's just an excercise in frustration. Find another copy.
> If there is no other copy, you must use extreme measures and expect
> poor end product sound quality compared to cases where you didn't use
> extreme measures.
> 
> 2. The most important thing with transferring typical LPs is, clean
> them and clean them well. I use a VPI machine, worth every penny. The
> second most important thing is, make sure your stylus is clean. I
> still use an old Discwasher brush and fluid. Next in line of
> importance is use a good cartridge (ie one that is not too colored --
> they're all colored but some are flatter and more accurate than
> others, to the point of being very transparent) and a good preamp (ie
> one that won't overload on the extremes of the RIAA curve and one that
> is very close to the curve). Others think it's best to transfer flat
> and then do RIAA curve in the computer. I've tried that and do not
> like the results in most cases. I definitely have a bias toward
> keeping as much processing as possible for analog material in the
> analog domain.
> 
> 3. While I transfer a record, I listen. I don't go off and get a cup
> of coffee, I don't make cellphone calls, I don't chit-chat, I listen.
> And I make notes as to where there are problems worth correcting in
> the computer (ie last few seconds of B2 have a series of ticks). This
> then makes the less enjoyable part (computer work) go faster.
> 
> 4. One of my audio mentors, Art Shifrin, is an ace at manually
> removing ticks and pops in Soundforge. He taught me the tricks and
> they work fantastic. Mostly, I use the pencil tool, zoomed in at 1:1,
> to re-write the tick/pop as the proper waveform. 

Another option is to use the smoothing in the WaveRepair program. This
works well if repeated cseveral times (you can set up a macro) - much
better than interpolation.


> It's a learned skill
> but it becomes self-evident after a while. Somewhat harder is
> carefully rewriting mangled waves from longer "crick-crackle" kind of
> vinyl damage, which is usually an injury to the groove itself. I don't
> even attempt this when there's something like a hole or wart in the
> vinyl because there is no underlying information to fix. Like I said,
> I try to avoid outright junky records.
> 
> 5. Another problem with vinyl that is just not fixable is groove
> distortion, where a groove was either overcut or has been damaged with
> time or bad pressing so the needle can't ride it properly. You find
> this with some older records, especially toward the inner label. I had
> a couple where I thought that my system wasn't good enough but I took
> them to a super-high-end hifi shop and tried to play them on systems
> that cost more than my vehicles. Still no joy, although one
> interesting learning is that different cartridges/tonearms resonate at
> different frequencies in these bad grooves, so what exactly is
> distorted varies. Alas, it's usually around violin or horn
> frequencies, which is a big bummer for classical records.

I have an SME arm on which I ran a thin line of silicone rubber (the
type sold for sealing the edges of baths etc) along the underside. This
damps the arm resonance well without adding significant mass.


>  In the case
> of these records, I found other copies and in a couple of cases, all
> copies had the same problem which tells me it's a mastering or
> manufacturing problem. One old hand at LP mastering told me that
> cartridges were stiffer and heavier back in the early days of stereo,
> so a problem like that would be bullied through on the playback,
> eventually gouging the groove and rendering the LP to skipping.
> Modern, lighter, more flexible cartridges just bounce around and
> resonate. This problem is not common at all on post-mid-60's LPs, in
> my experience, but mastering was more conservative later on and in
> some cases vinyl got better (softer/quieter).
> 
> 6. I am very hesitant to use digi-tools to auto-zap ticks and pops. I
> find that all but the very good and very expensive remove parts of the
> music. 

Especially muted trumpet, which has a waveform almost exactly like a
series of clicks.

> Some of the Sadie examples Graham Newton has sent me convince
> me that that particular tool (which is very expensive) is useful on
> older, lower-fidelity disks like radio transcriptions and probably
> music 78's where one must work off shellac because metal parts aren't
> available. I think the Bias tools are also pretty good if used
> conservatively. If I have a record that is just popcorn crackle but
> doesn't have other problems, I will use Soundforge's vinyl tool but
> with the settings made much more conservative than default. It still
> removes too much air and space for my liking and also will zap an
> occasional music transient, but sometimes there is so much popcorn
> that they can't all be practically zapped by hand. If I were working
> for a client or restoring something for release, I'd keep the clock
> running but do all the tick-zapping by hand. But this is an issue of
> personal taste. If you can't hear anything taken away, use the
> digi-tools to your heart's content. I also am very hesitant to go
> after tape hiss, but that's just me.
> 
> 7. Finally, what I did with my LPs was divide into three categories --
> 1) excellent condition, excellent sound, easy transfer candidates. In
> these cases, if there is a CD version out there, I'll compare. It's
> about 60-40 that the CD sounds better to my ears than the LP but I
> generally keep the LP anyway. In the cases where the CD was badly
> remastered, I'll transfer the LP and thoroughly enjoy the convenience
> of the transfer CD. 2) excellent condition but not the
> greatest-sounding albums, see if there is a bearable CD out there
> already. This is the bulk of the collection. These go about 75-25 that
> the sound improved in the CD remaster. Depressingly, about a quarter
> of them have WORSE sounding CD remasters. Some albums were just poorly
> made, but I think many suffer from bad LP mastering decisions (EQ,
> compression, levels) and then poorer CD remastering decisions (EQ,
> compression, over-loud, digital problems). 3) poor condition, low
> priority for transfer. In these cases, if there is a bearable CD, the
> LP gets donated to the Salvation Army. If the material never made it
> to CD, I ask myself if it would ever be enjoyable to listen to a
> transfer of that LP. Usually, the answer is no. In the few cases where
> the music is so compelling and likely never to make it to CD (for
> instance, cases where I know or am pretty sure the master is lost or
> unplayable), I will use extreme measures including wet-playing to try
> and get usable sound quality. There have only been a handful of these.
> 
> One man's opinions, etc. Happy Thanksgiving to all.
> 
> -- Tom Fine
> 
Regards
-- 
Don Cox
doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx