Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
I've had a bunch (850ish) 78rpm disc dropped off today, and I'd like to
digitize them. I've had good success with 33 and 45rmp record and various post processing (dehiss, declick, depop, compress, mash and torture), but my only player that can handle 78s is...well...old and does not have any outputs from the stylus (really a needle...seriously)except those to the cone. My question is pretty straightforward: Has anyone had luck recording a 78 at 45 rpm digitally and speeding it up using a software solution, and if so, what was the software used? I figure if someone can make Britney sound ok, this must be feasible and, regardless, I'm gonna try, so if someone can save me the experimentation, I'd be grateful. Many thanks in advance, CS |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
On 4/5/2012 3:50 PM, Cyberserf wrote:
Has anyone had luck recording a 78 at 45 rpm digitally and speeding it up using a software solution, and if so, what was the software used? I'm sure someone has tried it since Alesis or whatever their DJ branch is called sells a 33-45 USB turntable, throws in a copy of Audacity, and claims that it can be used to bring 78s up to speed. But I don't know if they have a template for EQ curves (there were a bunch used for 78s) and of course the microgroove stylus that comes with the turntable won't fit the wider groove of a 78 correctly. So, it's possible to do a half-assed job and preserve the music, but you might not be getting all the fidelity from the disks that they're capable of delivering if they're not buggered up too badly. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
Cyberserf wrote:
I've had a bunch (850ish) 78rpm disc dropped off today, and I'd like to digitize them. I've had good success with 33 and 45rmp record and various post processing (dehiss, declick, depop, compress, mash and torture), but my only player that can handle 78s is...well...old and does not have any outputs from the stylus (really a needle...seriously)except those to the cone. My question is pretty straightforward: Has anyone had luck recording a 78 at 45 rpm digitally and speeding it up using a software solution, and if so, what was the software used? I figure if someone can make Britney sound ok, this must be feasible and, regardless, I'm gonna try, so if someone can save me the experimentation, I'd be grateful. It depends what sort of result you consider acceptable. If you just want to hear what kind of music is on the discs, you will find lots of software that claims to change speed. If you want to do the job properly there are several things you need to know: 1) Speed: Not all "78s" run at 78 rpm, there were many other speeds both intentional and unintentional. The most popular alternative speed was 80 rpm which was standardised by the Columbia Graphophone Co. on all its labels until about 1929. Pathés can run up to over 100 rpm. 2) Equalisation: The only thing you can guarantee about equalisation is that RIAA will be wrong for any 78. There were lots of standards which different companies followed at different times and you need a wide range of settings to cope with them. Also bear in mind that if you equalise before pitch changing, your equalisation setting will need to change in proportion to the pitch change. 3) Stylus: There were many different groove profiles and you will need a range of styli to cope with them. Often a groove which is badly worn at one depth can be tracked successfully with a slightly larger or smaller stylus which rides higher or lower and avoids the damaged areas. 4) "Azimuth": The recording engineers sometimes rotated the cutter to direct the swarf towards the rim or the centre of the disc. This means that the waveforms on the two groove walls will be out of step. A conical playback stylus is not affected by this, but a truncated elliptical stylus will have to be swivelled to get the best results. Parallel tracking is essential to keep the azimuth correct across the whole playing surface, unless you are prepared to keep stopping to tweek the angle of a radial-tracking arm. 5) Archival practice: It is good archival practice to undo the various recording effects in the reverse order from that in which they originally occurred. e.g. the distortion from a badly-fitting stylus should be tackled during playback, as there is no satisfactory way of removing it further down the chain. In general, it is assumed that digital processes will generate artifacts which cannot be later identified and removed, it is therefore not acceptable to process the signal in the digital domain. This means that your speed, stylus size, stylus pressure, azimuth and equalisation must all be right before the analogue signal is digitised. This is rigidly applied to the Archive copy unless there is no alternative; other practices are sometimes accepted for the Playback copy. This is a contentious area and I am sure someone will vehemently tell me I am wrong, but those are the rules I have to work to when I produce transfers for various archives. As I said at the start, it all depends on what sort of sound quality you consider acceptable and how much trouble you are prepared to go to in order to get it. The azimuth adjustment and archival practices will only be needed for top quality work, but the rest is fairly fundamental. If you want to find out more about the subject, have a look at: http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelpres...loguesoundrest oration.pdf -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
In article , Cyberserf wrote:
I've had a bunch (850ish) 78rpm disc dropped off today, and I'd like to digitize them. I've had good success with 33 and 45rmp record and various post processing (dehiss, declick, depop, compress, mash and torture), but my only player that can handle 78s is...well...old and does not have any outputs from the stylus (really a needle...seriously)except those to the cone. My question is pretty straightforward: Has anyone had luck recording a 78 at 45 rpm digitally and speeding it up using a software solution, and if so, what was the software used? I figure if someone can make Britney sound ok, this must be feasible and, regardless, I'm gonna try, so if someone can save me the experimentation, I'd be grateful. Yes, you can do it, but the equalization constants for the RIAA EQ will all be different. If you double the speed, you double the turnover frequency. Although of course it's sort of academic since the 78 EQ won't be RIAA anyway. On top of which you will need an array of different styli to play 78s, since none of them are the same width grooves as LPs, and the widths vary. I would recommend that you call Esoteric Audio in Chicago. Purchase the cheapest 78 turntable they have and the Re-Equalizer (which is not really a good solution for dealing with emphasis issues, but it's a start and it's fairly cheap). Get a 2.7 mil stylus, a 3 mil stylus, and a 3.2 mil stylus. That will basically get you set up to do low-grade transcriptions of most electrical discs and have them not sound too bad. With LPs and 45s the key to a low noise floor is cleaning... but with shellac 78s there's only so much that cleaning can do since there is abrasive mixed into the pressing. Whatever you do, don't run a shellac 78 through the cleaning machine. Wash them by hand with a laboratory cleaner like Alconox, or with Ivory Soap if you have nothing better. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
I second most of what Adrian and Scott have said, but will add a
couple of addenda. 1. Adobe Audition can do a good job of speed-shifting as long as the original file is digitized at 24 bits (which Audition encodes as 32- bit floating point -- save it in that format). 2. It's possible to work around the equalization curve problem by recording the reference copy flat, no playback EQ at all. You may be able to disable the equalization in your phono preamp, or you can build a relatively simple flat preamp with a couple of 5532a opamps. Set the total gain in each channel for about +34dB with cartridges that have a 5mV nominal output level (Grado, Stanton), and make sure the input load resistor is 47k. 3. Once the recordings are in the computer, descratch, do the speed change, then apply the appropriate EQ -- use the Scientific Filters for the high-frequency rolloff, and the shelf function in the Parametric EQ for the low-frequency boost and turnover. (For, say, a 400Hz turnover, use a 40Hz shelving EQ set for +20dB). Chop off infrasonic crud, again using the Scientific Filters, and you're rolling. I actually record 78s flat all the time now, and do the EQ at my leisure during post-production. I think the results have always sounded at least as good as doing the EQ in the preamp, and often better. I'm told that DC EIGHT also has good EQ functions for 78s as well. I haven't tried those, but their descratching function is excellent. Peace, Paul |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
"Cyberserf" a écrit dans le message de news:
... I've had a bunch (850ish) 78rpm disc dropped off today, and I'd like to digitize them. I've had good success with 33 and 45rmp record and various post processing (dehiss, declick, depop, compress, mash and torture), but my only player that can handle 78s is...well...old and does not have any outputs from the stylus (really a needle...seriously)except those to the cone. My question is pretty straightforward: Has anyone had luck recording a 78 at 45 rpm digitally and speeding it up using a software solution, and if so, what was the software used? I figure if someone can make Britney sound ok, this must be feasible and, regardless, I'm gonna try, so if someone can save me the experimentation, I'd be grateful. Many thanks in advance, CS ================================================== ===== You can find my way of doing 78rpm with a 45rpm player = http://www.a-reny.com/iexplorer/restauration.html -- Allen RENY www.a-reny.com |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
PStamler wrote:
I actually record 78s flat all the time now, and do the EQ at my leisure during post-production. I think the results have always sounded at least as good as doing the EQ in the preamp, and often better. I do this also and it works very well, BUT if you do this, don't try and use a microphone preamp. The cartridge MUST have proper 47k loading, and the easy way to do this, if you don't want to build anything or spend a lot of money for a purpose-built archive unit, is to use an RIAA preamp. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
Buzz wrote:
"Cyberserf" a écrit dans le message de news: ... I've had a bunch (850ish) 78rpm disc dropped off today, and I'd like to digitize them. I've had good success with 33 and 45rmp record and various post processing (dehiss, declick, depop, compress, mash and torture), but my only player that can handle 78s is...well...old and does not have any outputs from the stylus (really a needle...seriously)except those to the cone. My question is pretty straightforward: Has anyone had luck recording a 78 at 45 rpm digitally and speeding it up using a software solution, and if so, what was the software used? I figure if someone can make Britney sound ok, this must be feasible and, regardless, I'm gonna try, so if someone can save me the experimentation, I'd be grateful. Many thanks in advance, CS ================================================== ===== You can find my way of doing 78rpm with a 45rpm player = http://www.a-reny.com/iexplorer/restauration.html I think the word "restoring" should not be used for the method you describe; perhaps the word "hearing" would be more appropriate. Restoration implies that some sort of care has been taken to produce results which represent the historic material at its best, whereas the method you have described will only give a travesty of the original sound. You have not described any feature which is appropriate for 78s. If someone tells you to photograph an historic painting illuminated by sodium light without even bothering to clean dirt off the glass - then suggests that if you attempt to correct the errors in Photoshop, you would have no difficulty in seeing that this was not restoration. It might be a useful way to see what the picture contained, but it would not even be a good representation of it. Similarly, your method would be a useful way to hear what a 78 contained, expecially for someone who had no other means of playing it, but it is not a restoration process and much of the original sound quality would be lost. Your website perpetuates the myth that the sound quality of 78s is poor and not worth taking the trouble to get right. I can understand why you might think that if you have never played a 78 correctly. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
"Adrian Tuddenham" a écrit dans le
message de news: .invalid... Buzz wrote: "Cyberserf" a écrit dans le message de news: ... I've had a bunch (850ish) 78rpm disc dropped off today, and I'd like to digitize them. I've had good success with 33 and 45rmp record and various post processing (dehiss, declick, depop, compress, mash and torture), but my only player that can handle 78s is...well...old and does not have any outputs from the stylus (really a needle...seriously)except those to the cone. My question is pretty straightforward: Has anyone had luck recording a 78 at 45 rpm digitally and speeding it up using a software solution, and if so, what was the software used? I figure if someone can make Britney sound ok, this must be feasible and, regardless, I'm gonna try, so if someone can save me the experimentation, I'd be grateful. Many thanks in advance, CS ================================================== ===== You can find my way of doing 78rpm with a 45rpm player = http://www.a-reny.com/iexplorer/restauration.html I think the word "restoring" should not be used for the method you describe; perhaps the word "hearing" would be more appropriate. Restoration implies that some sort of care has been taken to produce results which represent the historic material at its best, whereas the method you have described will only give a travesty of the original sound. You have not described any feature which is appropriate for 78s. If someone tells you to photograph an historic painting illuminated by sodium light without even bothering to clean dirt off the glass - then suggests that if you attempt to correct the errors in Photoshop, you would have no difficulty in seeing that this was not restoration. It might be a useful way to see what the picture contained, but it would not even be a good representation of it. Similarly, your method would be a useful way to hear what a 78 contained, expecially for someone who had no other means of playing it, but it is not a restoration process and much of the original sound quality would be lost. Your website perpetuates the myth that the sound quality of 78s is poor and not worth taking the trouble to get right. I can understand why you might think that if you have never played a 78 correctly. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk ================================================== === When I was a ten year old kid, I used a gramophone to listen to 78 rpm records. It was wound up by hand and I used to have to change the needle very often. I liked electronics and radio. So I built a valve transmitter, put an american military mike on the horn and my local pals could listen to what I was I was playing. And, if you looked at my old web site, it is explained that restoring is not really the right word to use. -- Allen RENY www.a-reny.com |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
On Apr 6, 9:20*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
PStamler wrote: I actually record 78s flat all the time now, and do the EQ at my leisure during post-production. I think the results have always sounded at least as good as doing the EQ in the preamp, and often better. I do this also and it works very well, BUT if you do this, don't try and use a microphone preamp. *The cartridge MUST have proper 47k loading, and the easy way to do this, if you don't want to build anything or spend a lot of money for a purpose-built archive unit, is to use an RIAA preamp. But that gets tricky if you're recording a disc turning at 45 rpm. Perhaps one solution is to record via an RIAA preamp, remove the RIAA curve in post, then do the speed change and apply whatever curve is needed. On the other hand, the OP mentioned needinig to transfer 850 records. For a job that big, it's worth building a simple flat preamp, or buying one (there's a flat preamp that costs about $150 available from the same folks who sell DC EIGHT). Or you could adapt the Hagerman preamp for flat response -- it's pretty reasonably priced, though it comes without a box. Peace, Paul |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
PStamler wrote:
On Apr 6, 9:20=A0am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: PStamler wrote: I actually record 78s flat all the time now, and do the EQ at my leisure during post-production. I think the results have always sounded at least as good as doing the EQ in the preamp, and often better. I do this also and it works very well, BUT if you do this, don't try and use a microphone preamp. =A0The cartridge MUST have proper 47k loading, a= nd the easy way to do this, if you don't want to build anything or spend a l= ot of money for a purpose-built archive unit, is to use an RIAA preamp. But that gets tricky if you're recording a disc turning at 45 rpm. Right. That's why I highly, highly recommended the original poster not do that. Perhaps one solution is to record via an RIAA preamp, remove the RIAA curve in post, then do the speed change and apply whatever curve is needed. That doesn't sound like fun to me. On the other hand, the OP mentioned needinig to transfer 850 records. For a job that big, it's worth building a simple flat preamp, or buying one (there's a flat preamp that costs about $150 available from the same folks who sell DC EIGHT). Or you could adapt the Hagerman preamp for flat response -- it's pretty reasonably priced, though it comes without a box. If it were me, I'd buy a proper turntable and the Re-equalizer, if only because I am not sure you could select the proper stylus with the thing playing below normal speed either. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
"PStamler" wrote in message ... On the other hand, the OP mentioned needinig to transfer 850 records. For a job that big, it's worth building a simple flat preamp, Agreed. or buying one (there's a flat preamp that costs about $150 available from the same folks who sell DC EIGHT). Or you could adapt the Hagerman preamp for flat response -- it's pretty reasonably priced, though it comes without a box. Most phono pre-amps use CR feedback networks and could easily be modified as an alternative to building or buying a new one. Not a job for everyone of course :-) Trevor. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... If it were me, I'd buy a proper turntable and the Re-equalizer, if only because I am not sure you could select the proper stylus with the thing playing below normal speed either. Whilst I'd do it at the correct speed, I can't see why the stylus would be speed dependent. Groove dependent absolutely, but playing slower should be easier I would have thought. Might even allow it to track better. Trevor. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
In article , Trevor wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... If it were me, I'd buy a proper turntable and the Re-equalizer, if only because I am not sure you could select the proper stylus with the thing playing below normal speed either. Whilst I'd do it at the correct speed, I can't see why the stylus would be speed dependent. Groove dependent absolutely, but playing slower should be easier I would have thought. Might even allow it to track better. It would be, but it's hard to listen to what is going on with the tracking when the thing is playing at the wrong speed and with the wrong EQ. I have occasionally recorded records at half speed in order to deal with tracking problems, and then sped it up afterward. However, I found it much easier to get the system set up at normal speed first. You could do it, but it would take more time than doing it at normal speed, and with 850 records I would think you would want to be working as fast as possible. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... You could do it, but it would take more time than doing it at normal speed, and with 850 records I would think you would want to be working as fast as possible. Now THAT is the reason I'd want to do it at the correct speed with less post processing. Given that many records, and time needed, surely buying a proper turntable/cartridge/pre-amp is worthwhile. But then I can't think of 850 78's I'd ever want to record :-) Trevor. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 08:46:28 +1000, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article 45 to 78, "Trevor" wrote: "PStamler" wrote in message ... On the other hand, the OP mentioned needinig to transfer 850 records. For a job that big, it's worth building a simple flat preamp, Agreed. or buying one (there's a flat preamp that costs about $150 available from the same folks who sell DC EIGHT). Or you could adapt the Hagerman preamp for flat response -- it's pretty reasonably priced, though it comes without a box. Most phono pre-amps use CR feedback networks and could easily be modified as an alternative to building or buying a new one. Not a job for everyone of course :-) Trevor. Here are a couple of specialty products designed for accurate playback of older recordings, including 78 RPM records. 78 RPM and RIAA Preamplifier http://www.vadlyd.dk/English/RIAA_an...PM_preamp.html The Vadlyd MD12 Mk3 comes from Denmark and is distributed in the U.S. by Master Digital Corporation of Covington, Louisiana. Vadlyd MD12 Mk3 78 rpm & RIAA Phono Preamplifier http://www.masterdigital.com/24bit/vadlydmd12.htm And from KAB Electro - Acoustics in Plainfield, New Jersey, there's the KAB Souvenir EQS MK 12. KAB Souvenir EQS MK 12 http://www.kabusa.com/eqsmk12.htm Both of these are higher-end products. The Vadlyd MD12 Mk3 is priced at USD $1,960.00 and the KAB Souvenir EQS MK 12 is USD $1625.00. I've never used either, but if I ever found myself in a situation where I was performing serious 78 RPM record transfers, I'd certainly consider them. Also, and at a much lower price point of USD $635.00, there's the Model 4010 Preamplifier (aka "The Restoration Preamp") from TDL Technology, Inc. of Las Cruces, New Mexico. Model 4010 (aka "The Restoration Preamp") Preamplifier http://www.tdl-tech.com/data4010.htm -- Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY [Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.] Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/ [also covers AVCHD (including AVCCAM & NXCAM) and XDCAM EX]. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
"Frank" wrote in message ... Most phono pre-amps use CR feedback networks and could easily be modified as an alternative to building or buying a new one. Not a job for everyone of course :-) Here are a couple of specialty products designed for accurate playback of older recordings, including 78 RPM records. 78 RPM and RIAA Preamplifier http://www.vadlyd.dk/English/RIAA_an...PM_preamp.html The Vadlyd MD12 Mk3 comes from Denmark and is distributed in the U.S. by Master Digital Corporation of Covington, Louisiana. Vadlyd MD12 Mk3 78 rpm & RIAA Phono Preamplifier http://www.masterdigital.com/24bit/vadlydmd12.htm And from KAB Electro - Acoustics in Plainfield, New Jersey, there's the KAB Souvenir EQS MK 12. KAB Souvenir EQS MK 12 http://www.kabusa.com/eqsmk12.htm Both of these are higher-end products. The Vadlyd MD12 Mk3 is priced at USD $1,960.00 and the KAB Souvenir EQS MK 12 is USD $1625.00. I've never used either, but if I ever found myself in a situation where I was performing serious 78 RPM record transfers, I'd certainly consider them. Are you a millionaire then, or do you mean performing transfers for a price for other rich people? Do you think spending ~$2k on a preamp alone will turn your 78's into something sublime? What would you spend on the actual turntable/cartridge/stylii selection, which is far more important? Also, and at a much lower price point of USD $635.00, there's the Model 4010 Preamplifier (aka "The Restoration Preamp") from TDL Technology, Inc. of Las Cruces, New Mexico. Model 4010 (aka "The Restoration Preamp") Preamplifier http://www.tdl-tech.com/data4010.htm Still seems expensive to me, but each to their own..... Trevor. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
In article , Trevor wrote:
"Frank" wrote in message Here are a couple of specialty products designed for accurate playback of older recordings, including 78 RPM records. 78 RPM and RIAA Preamplifier http://www.vadlyd.dk/English/RIAA_an...PM_preamp.html The Vadlyd MD12 Mk3 comes from Denmark and is distributed in the U.S. by Master Digital Corporation of Covington, Louisiana. Vadlyd MD12 Mk3 78 rpm & RIAA Phono Preamplifier http://www.masterdigital.com/24bit/vadlydmd12.htm And from KAB Electro - Acoustics in Plainfield, New Jersey, there's the KAB Souvenir EQS MK 12. KAB Souvenir EQS MK 12 http://www.kabusa.com/eqsmk12.htm I haven't used the Vadlyd, but I have used the KAB and it's serviceable and reasonably controllable for electrics. It's not enough for acoustics. Manley and Millennia also have popular high end phono preamps with adjustable equalization and a couple extra filters, which are also very fine. Are you a millionaire then, or do you mean performing transfers for a price for other rich people? Do you think spending ~$2k on a preamp alone will turn your 78's into something sublime? What would you spend on the actual turntable/cartridge/stylii selection, which is far more important? The problem is that if you want consistent and repeatable equalization settings, it costs money. Precision 10-turn pots and vernier controls are expensive. This is why so many people today are taking the computer equalization route, using a flat preamp. It is a much less expensive method although it can be less convenient. Personally I am using a homebrew preamp with vernier and stepped controls, and I suspect if I had to build one today using all-new parts instead of military surplus avionics stuff, I'd be paying more than $2k in pots alone. Also, and at a much lower price point of USD $635.00, there's the Model 4010 Preamplifier (aka "The Restoration Preamp") from TDL Technology, Inc. of Las Cruces, New Mexico. Model 4010 (aka "The Restoration Preamp") Preamplifier http://www.tdl-tech.com/data4010.htm Still seems expensive to me, but each to their own..... I have a friend who uses one, and it's not bad at all. However, if I were on a real budget, I would look into the Re-Equalizer from Esoteric Sound. The Re-Equalizer goes after your existing RIAA preamplifier, and it adds compensation filters so that you can set up one or two filters with adjustable turnover (but fixed slope) for electric recordings. For acoustics, I really recommend an Orban 674..... but don't expect repeatability.... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... The problem is that if you want consistent and repeatable equalization settings, it costs money. Precision 10-turn pots and vernier controls are expensive. This is why so many people today are taking the computer equalization route, using a flat preamp. It is a much less expensive method although it can be less convenient. That was the point, digitising 78's, NOT repeatable listening to the originals. You are better off using a "standard" EQ (for the 78 involved, not RIAA), then adjusting in post processing, and spending the money saved where it matters most. I'd always use a rough EQ (even RIAA) in preference to a flat pre-amp however. Amazing that people want adjustable EQ pre-amps with ten turn pots while claiming that you can't adjust the same way in a DAW just as easily. Trevor. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 12:19:21 +1000, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article 45 to 78, "Trevor" wrote: "Frank" wrote in message .. . Most phono pre-amps use CR feedback networks and could easily be modified as an alternative to building or buying a new one. Not a job for everyone of course :-) Here are a couple of specialty products designed for accurate playback of older recordings, including 78 RPM records. 78 RPM and RIAA Preamplifier http://www.vadlyd.dk/English/RIAA_an...PM_preamp.html The Vadlyd MD12 Mk3 comes from Denmark and is distributed in the U.S. by Master Digital Corporation of Covington, Louisiana. Vadlyd MD12 Mk3 78 rpm & RIAA Phono Preamplifier http://www.masterdigital.com/24bit/vadlydmd12.htm And from KAB Electro - Acoustics in Plainfield, New Jersey, there's the KAB Souvenir EQS MK 12. KAB Souvenir EQS MK 12 http://www.kabusa.com/eqsmk12.htm Both of these are higher-end products. The Vadlyd MD12 Mk3 is priced at USD $1,960.00 and the KAB Souvenir EQS MK 12 is USD $1625.00. I've never used either, but if I ever found myself in a situation where I was performing serious 78 RPM record transfers, I'd certainly consider them. Are you a millionaire then, No, but 99 percent of my immediate neighbors are. (Seriously.) Not that that has anything to do with this, as it doesn't. or do you mean performing transfers for a price for other rich people? I do not own a single 78 RPM recording, but if I did, and especially if I owned many 78 RPM recordings, and I cherished them and I wanted to perform a highly-accurate and good-sounding analog to digital transfer on them, I would seriously consider the Vadlyd unit. I've easily spent way north of $50K on personal electronics in my lifetime and $1960 is not more than I would consider spending. If I were offering it as a professional service, then there would be no question about getting the Vadlyd unit. Do you think spending ~$2k on a preamp alone will turn your 78's into something sublime? Was that a rhetorical question? Of course not, and having the best equipment available but not knowing how to properly use it won't help to produce high quality results either. The settings need to be correct for each individual record being transferred. What would you spend on the actual turntable/cartridge/stylii selection, which is far more important? If buying new, probably no more than $2K to $4K. Also, and at a much lower price point of USD $635.00, there's the Model 4010 Preamplifier (aka "The Restoration Preamp") from TDL Technology, Inc. of Las Cruces, New Mexico. Model 4010 (aka "The Restoration Preamp") Preamplifier http://www.tdl-tech.com/data4010.htm Still seems expensive to me, but each to their own..... I didn't intent to upset you. Trevor. I was just posting information, that's all. Lot's of people read these newsgroups, you know, and in many cases years later on Google Groups, so there's a historical element involved as well. I was most certainly not suggesting that you rush out and purchase one of these products. As best that I could recall, no one in this thread had previously posted anything about this class of product, so I thought that I would since I had the information handy. Trevor. -- Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY [Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.] Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/ [also covers AVCHD (including AVCCAM & NXCAM) and XDCAM EX]. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
"Frank" wrote in message ... Both of these are higher-end products. The Vadlyd MD12 Mk3 is priced at USD $1,960.00 and the KAB Souvenir EQS MK 12 is USD $1625.00. I've never used either, but if I ever found myself in a situation where I was performing serious 78 RPM record transfers, I'd certainly consider them. Are you a millionaire then, No, but 99 percent of my immediate neighbors are. (Seriously.) Not that that has anything to do with this, as it doesn't. It has a lot to do with ones ability to spend $2k on a pre-amp alone, that may not be necessary for the purpose. or do you mean performing transfers for a price for other rich people? I do not own a single 78 RPM recording, but if I did, and especially if I owned many 78 RPM recordings, and I cherished them and I wanted to perform a highly-accurate and good-sounding analog to digital transfer on them, I would seriously consider the Vadlyd unit. Good for you. Others would consider it a waste, even if they could afford it. I've easily spent way north of $50K on personal electronics in my lifetime and $1960 is not more than I would consider spending. Me either, but for something that would actually contribute to my musical pleasure. You get to make your own judgements of just how much to spend on a turntable/cartridge/stylii/pre-amp to copy those 78's. Obviously FAR more than the cost of the pre-amp alone, or the pre-amp will simply be a strong link in a very weak chain. If I were offering it as a professional service, then there would be no question about getting the Vadlyd unit. In that case it may be worth it, but probably still unnecessary, and still a cost to your bottom line deducted from what you can charge. I won't expect you will ever have to make that decision however. Do you think spending ~$2k on a preamp alone will turn your 78's into something sublime? Was that a rhetorical question? Of course not, and having the best equipment available but not knowing how to properly use it won't help to produce high quality results either. The settings need to be correct for each individual record being transferred. What would you spend on the actual turntable/cartridge/stylii selection, which is far more important? If buying new, probably no more than $2K to $4K. So you'd spend $2k on a pre-amp, but no more than $2k-$4k on the turntable/cartridge/stylii options. That mis-match of expenditure will not give you the best results for your overall budget IMO. THAT was MY point! You may not agree obviously, your choice. Still seems expensive to me, but each to their own..... I didn't intent to upset you. Trevor. I'm not upset at all. It's not my money, and not even yours since it was a hypothetical purchase. I was just posting information, And I was just posting my opinion. I was most certainly not suggesting that you rush out and purchase one of these products. I realise that, just as you realise the chance of me doing that is ZERO. :-) As best that I could recall, no one in this thread had previously posted anything about this class of product, so I thought that I would since I had the information handy. Which is fine and dandy, just as it is me stating that it may not be the best use of available funds to achieve the desired outcome. Trevor. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message k... Trevor wrote: Which is fine and dandy, just as it is me stating that it may not be the best use of available funds to achieve the desired outcome. Putting money into transducers is a safe quality bet, but I'm strongly opposed to the view that grammophone records do not benefit from quality electronics. Of course they do, however I still say $2k spent on a pre-amp and $2k spent on the turntable/tonearm/cartridge and a range of stylii options is NOT necessarily the best use of available funds. Others are entitled to a different opinion, since they don't have to prove it. What does cost extra in the context of transcription preamps is the eq options and making them easily repeatable, from a workflow viewpoint it is attractive to eq a disc properly in the first stage, ie. prior to digitizing. And since we know that there are many different "standards" for 78's, and many non standard, an expensive pre-amp with infinite EQ adjustment buys you no more benefit than a DAW with infinite EQ adjustment. And both can usually save those settings. That said, after reading this thread I think I'll look into "de-eq'ing" a riaa .... Frankly the idea of "de-EQing" from RIAA to flat, then re-EQing to a somewhat similar although different curve, both having fairly large gain ranges, is guaranteed to reduce quality. Far better IMO to work out the *difference* in required EQ curve and apply that instead. It's not rocket science if you know the curves, and if you don't you're only guessing anyway, might as well start with the RIAA curve and play with it from there until you like the sound. Or pay $2k for a pre-amp if cost is not a consideration for some :-) Although how that helps with an unknown EQ curve is beyond me, surely it's still just tweak to taste in that instance? Trevor. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
Trevor wrote:
That said, after reading this thread I think I'll look into "de-eq'ing" a riaa .... Frankly the idea of "de-EQing" from RIAA to flat, Is about something done with a solder iron! Trevor Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message k... That said, after reading this thread I think I'll look into "de-eq'ing" a riaa .... Frankly the idea of "de-EQing" from RIAA to flat, Is about something done with a solder iron! Sorry I misunderstood. That of course has problems too though, mostly increased noise when you add the full EQ in software, plus necessary changes required to overall gain to avoid pre-amp overload problems. (this is the main reason for the possible noise problem) Why not simply change the EQ/feedback components for the necessary curve (or a generic 78 one at least) and then make minor adjustments in the DAW? Or simply leave the RIAA preamp alone, and make the EQ changes in the DAW, which is probably the easiest method IMO. Calculate the curve adjustments required, and save the settings. Trevor. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
Trevor wrote:
"PStamler" wrote in message ... On the other hand, the OP mentioned needinig to transfer 850 records. For a job that big, it's worth building a simple flat preamp, Agreed. or buying one (there's a flat preamp that costs about $150 available from the same folks who sell DC EIGHT). Or you could adapt the Hagerman preamp for flat response -- it's pretty reasonably priced, though it comes without a box. Most phono pre-amps use CR feedback networks and could easily be modified as an alternative to building or buying a new one. Not a job for everyone of course :-) If you want to go down that road, the vast majority of electrically-recorded 78s can be equalised with this circuit : http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/.../Equaliser.gif which I have adapted from another piece of equipment I designed. As shown, it will give x30 voltage gain and can be connected directly to mono moving coil pickup cartridge. If a stereo cartridge is used and the coils can be connected in series, replace the 47k resistor with 100k. If the coils can only be paralleled (because of the way the pickup is wired), replace the 47k resistor with 22k. If it is used in this way, Ic1 and Ic4 should be a low noise type such as NE5532. Something cheaper like a TL072 could be used for Ic2 & Ic3. If more gain is required, replace the 33k feedback resistor around Ic4 with a higher value (up to 470k). If it is used with an existing 'flat' pre-amp with a voltage gain of about 30 (as suggested by Paul Stamler), the feedback components of Ic1, shown inside a dotted box, should be omitted. All four Ics could then be included in one package, such as a TL074. Ony two moderately accurate components are needed, the 10-turn pot and the 100nf capacitor, all the rest can be +-5%. The most expensive item will be the box and PSU, so the use of a high quality 10-turn pot and dial is not particularly extravagant in view of the overall cost. I selected the capacitor by means of a bridge for my particular application, but for an off-the-shelf +-5% component will be adequate for most ordinary requirements. The dial is read-off directly in microseconds, which can be converted to frequency with the table in the drawing or by calculation. Hope this helps -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
Trevor wrote:
Frankly the idea of "de-EQing" from RIAA to flat, then re-EQing to a somewhat similar although different curve, both having fairly large gain ranges, is guaranteed to reduce quality. Far better IMO to work out the *difference* in required EQ curve and apply that instead. You have obviously never tried doing it. It is far less trouble to build the right pre-amp for the job in the first place. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message alid.invalid... Trevor wrote: Frankly the idea of "de-EQing" from RIAA to flat, then re-EQing to a somewhat similar although different curve, both having fairly large gain ranges, is guaranteed to reduce quality. Far better IMO to work out the *difference* in required EQ curve and apply that instead. You have obviously never tried doing it. It is far less trouble to build the right pre-amp for the job in the first place. You forgot, *IN YOUR OPINION*. But IF I had 850 to do as the OP said, then that's the way I'd do it too. But I'd still add some EQ in DAW for any differences to the EQ used for particular discs, rather than build a dozen different EQ settings into the preamp, or have to play with ten turn pots all the time, for no real advantage, IMO. Trevor. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
Trevor wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message alid.invalid... Trevor wrote: Frankly the idea of "de-EQing" from RIAA to flat, then re-EQing to a somewhat similar although different curve, both having fairly large gain ranges, is guaranteed to reduce quality. Far better IMO to work out the *difference* in required EQ curve and apply that instead. You have obviously never tried doing it. It is far less trouble to build the right pre-amp for the job in the first place. You forgot, *IN YOUR OPINION*. Sorry, I forgot to add that it was only in my opinion - but my opinion was based on 20 years of experience as a professional 78s transfer engineer. The 'difference' curve would be a complex one with slopes which were not easily generated. In fact, the most straightforward way to generate the 'difference' slopes and gains would be to use a set of time constants which gave the inverse of thte RIAA curve and another set of time constants which generated the required'78s' characteristic. In effect you would be de-equalising and re-equalising exactly as before. One of the oddest re-equalisation jobs I have ever tackled was an L.P. of 78s transfers which sounded horribly muddy. It appaers that the original transfer engineer had played the 78s with RIAA equalisation. I played the L.P. with 78s equalisation and it all came back right again. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
Trevor wrote: You forgot, *IN YOUR OPINION*. Sorry, I forgot to add that it was only in my opinion - but my opinion was based on 20 years of experience as a professional 78s transfer engineer. I was getting the impression that Trevor wrote about doing it digitally after digitizing and you wrote about doing it in an analog stage prior to digitizing. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
Frank wrote:
Thank you for the information, Scott, you're a fountain of knowledge. Gabe Weiner was the real expert. He'd work on acoustics, and I won't touch anything that isn't electric. I used to do a whole lot of 78 transcription work in the late eighties and early nineties but that seems mostly to have dried up as so much of the popular stuff has got reissued. I still do an acetate now and then for someone. I'll keep this in mind should I ever have to cross this particular bridge. The bridge to electrics isn't too bad, the bridge to acoustics is scary and has no end. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
In article , Trevor wrote:
Of course they do, however I still say $2k spent on a pre-amp and $2k spent on the turntable/tonearm/cartridge and a range of stylii options is NOT necessarily the best use of available funds. Others are entitled to a different opinion, since they don't have to prove it. $2k is about ten hours of my time. So, if I invest $2K in a preamp, is it going to save ten hours by straightening out my workflow? Probably not because I'm not doing a lot of shellac work these days. But if I were, it might. And since we know that there are many different "standards" for 78's, and many non standard, an expensive pre-amp with infinite EQ adjustment buys you no more benefit than a DAW with infinite EQ adjustment. And both can usually save those settings. Depends on how easy it is to adjust the DAW... when you spend money on consoles and preamps, a lot of what you're spending money on is user interface. A lot of the time dealing with unknown shellac is spent fiddling around and listening to changes and trying to decide which settings are really correct. Money is a work-value equivalent... I pay someone else money so that I don't have to do some work in order to get something I want. Whether it is worth it or not depends on how much work I save. I could build everything in the studio from component level if I had to, but I'd rather spend money and let someone else do that. Frankly the idea of "de-EQing" from RIAA to flat, then re-EQing to a somewhat similar although different curve, both having fairly large gain ranges, is guaranteed to reduce quality. Far better IMO to work out the *difference* in required EQ curve and apply that instead. It's not rocket science if you know the curves, and if you don't you're only guessing anyway, might as well start with the RIAA curve and play with it from there until you like the sound. Or pay $2k for a pre-amp if cost is not a consideration for some :-) Although how that helps with an unknown EQ curve is beyond me, surely it's still just tweak to taste in that instance? This is true, however, if you want to start flat, you're back into custom preamplifier territory. I agree that the re-equalization concept is guaranteed to reduce quality, but if you're on a severe budget it can be done and it's not horrible. I did actually test out the Re-Equalizer from Esoteric on the bench a few years ago and it's better than I expected. In some cases the curves are well-known... if someone hands me an RCA Red Seal pressing, I know exactly where the turnover and slope settings go. In some cases they aren't known at all... some labels used varying EQ and you know it's one of three or four possibilities and just have to sort out which one. On top of this, you may have room and microphone artifacts to deal with using a parametric filter. Sometimes they're all the same... whatever microphone Brunswick used had one big peak that can be notched out. Sometimes they aren't. And then acoustic recordings are a whole different kettle of fish, and that's where it becomes entirely a judgement call to equalize anything. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
Peter Larsen wrote:
Adrian Tuddenham wrote: Trevor wrote: You forgot, *IN YOUR OPINION*. Sorry, I forgot to add that it was only in my opinion - but my opinion was based on 20 years of experience as a professional 78s transfer engineer. I was getting the impression that Trevor wrote about doing it digitally after digitizing and you wrote about doing it in an analog stage prior to digitizing. You are correct that I was thinking about doing it in analogue, but the errors involved in doing it digitally are just as bad and less easy for the user to control. Even generating a simple 6dB/octave slope in digital is a more difficult process than generating it in analogue, and less likely to be error-free. The digital process would require two slopes to undo RIAA and one to re-equalise, then the product of all of them would be applied to the signal. To generate the software for this, or to try to manipulate exising software, would not be a trivial process. The equalisation would also be applied to any errors resulting from the A/D conversion and it would generate artifacts of its own due to truncation errors. Most of the equalisation required for 78s is intended to reverse-engineer an analogue process and, to my mind, is much more easily done in the analogue domain before digitisation. In the example above, six moderately accurate components would be required. If the equalisation were done at-source (without any intervening RIAA stage) only two moderately accurate components would be needed. Only the unavoidable noise of the pre-amplifier would be affected by the equalisation and there would be no other artifacts. There is also the point raised elsewhe it is extremely difficult to monitor the signal for errors if it is not available at the right speed and correctly equalised during the actual transcription process. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
Trevor wrote:
"PStamler" wrote in message ... On the other hand, the OP mentioned needinig to transfer 850 records. For a job that big, it's worth building a simple flat preamp, Agreed. or buying one (there's a flat preamp that costs about $150 available from the same folks who sell DC EIGHT). Or you could adapt the Hagerman preamp for flat response -- it's pretty reasonably priced, though it comes without a box. Most phono pre-amps use CR feedback networks and could easily be modified as an alternative to building or buying a new one. Not a job for everyone of course :-) If you want to go down that road, the vast majority of electrically-recorded 78s can be equalised with this circuit : http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/.../Equaliser.gif which I have adapted from another piece of equipment I designed. As shown, it will give x100 voltage gain and can be connected directly to mono moving coil pickup cartridge. If a stereo cartridge is used and the coils can be connected in series, replace the 47k resistor with 100k. If the coils can only be paralleled (because of the way the pickup is wired), replace the 47k resistor with 22k. If it is used in this way, Ic1 and Ic4 should be a low noise type such as NE5532. Something cheaper like a TL072 could be used for Ic2 & Ic3. If more gain is required, replace the 33k feedback resistor around Ic4 with a higher value (up to 470k). If it is used with an existing 'flat' pre-amp with a voltage gain of about 30 (as suggested by Paul Stamler), the feedback components of Ic1, shown inside a dotted box, should be omitted. All four Ics could then be included in one package, such as a TL074. Only two moderately accurate components are needed, the 10-turn pot and the 100nf capacitor, all the rest can be +-5%. The most expensive item will be the box and PSU, so the use of a high quality 10-turn pot and dial is not particularly extravagant in view of the overall cost. I selected the capacitor by means of a bridge for my particular application, but for an off-the-shelf +-5% component will be adequate for most ordinary requirements. The dial is read-off directly in microseconds, which can be converted to frequency with the table in the drawing or by calculation. Hope this helps -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
Scott Dorsey wrote:
[...] And then acoustic recordings are a whole different kettle of fish, and that's where it becomes entirely a judgement call to equalize anything. I have had a degree of success with a horn mouth equaliser that deals with the major component of 'horn sound' on some single-horn recordings. Multiple-horn recordings are the worst, they are theoretically impossible to equalise correctly. On the other hand, some acoustic Columbias are so good that electrical equalisation can be used with fairly good results. It has recently become apparent that in the early and mid 1920s - before the 'official' start of electrical recording - many Columbias were recorded electrically but with a horn fitted to the microphone. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 13:24:08 +0100, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article 45 to 78, lid (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: [...] And then acoustic recordings are a whole different kettle of fish, and that's where it becomes entirely a judgement call to equalize anything. I have had a degree of success with a horn mouth equaliser that deals with the major component of 'horn sound' on some single-horn recordings. Multiple-horn recordings are the worst, they are theoretically impossible to equalise correctly. On the other hand, some acoustic Columbias are so good that electrical equalisation can be used with fairly good results. It has recently become apparent that in the early and mid 1920s - before the 'official' start of electrical recording - many Columbias were recorded electrically but with a horn fitted to the microphone. Speaking of horns... Prosound Network: Suzanne Vega Cuts Wax At Edison Labs http://www.prosoundnetwork.com/artic...son-labs/14529 -- Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY [Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.] Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/ [also covers AVCHD (including AVCCAM & NXCAM) and XDCAM EX]. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 14:07:04 +1000, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article 45 to 78, "Trevor" wrote: "Frank" wrote in message .. . Both of these are higher-end products. The Vadlyd MD12 Mk3 is priced at USD $1,960.00 and the KAB Souvenir EQS MK 12 is USD $1625.00. I've never used either, but if I ever found myself in a situation where I was performing serious 78 RPM record transfers, I'd certainly consider them. Are you a millionaire then, No, but 99 percent of my immediate neighbors are. (Seriously.) Not that that has anything to do with this, as it doesn't. It has a lot to do with ones ability to spend $2k on a pre-amp alone, that may not be necessary for the purpose. I beg to differ. The net worth of my neighbors has zero impact on my ability to spend money - on anything - a specialized phono preamp or anything else. or do you mean performing transfers for a price for other rich people? I am not a rich person and never have been a rich person, so your use of the term "for other rich people" is completely, totally, and utterly inaccurate. Many of my neighbors aren't "rich people" either, even though their net worth is in excess of a million dollars, which technically makes them millionaires, but that means little here. Manhattan has it's own economy. In this town, at above a certain social level, the definition of "rich" probably starts at about the 100 million dollar level, possibly even higher than that. I'm reminded of the story of a woman in Brooklyn, just an average middle class person, who a few years ago had done something, sorry I can't recall the precise details, to suddenly earn herself a certain lump sum of money, about $13 million as I recall from the news article that I read at the time. She decided to "escape from Brooklyn" and move to Manhattan. After reviewing the real estate market here, she realized that $13 million in Manhattan was almost pocket change and wouldn't buy her all that much. Consequentially, she decided to remain in Brooklyn. Rich is a relative term, especially in this town. We have drug dealers who feel rich because they've got $10,000 cash in their pocket and we've got teenage kids who feel rich because they've got a 9mm in their pocket. We've also got homeless people who feel rich because they believe that they have a guaranteed place to sleep tonight (indoors) and maybe a couple of hot meals in their future. We've also got Donald Trump. Here's another true story. Five or six blocks north of me is a local branch of the NYPL (New York Public Library). A local artist, a sculptor, wanted to create a small statue that would be installed on the sidewalk just outside the library entrance, but the estimated cost was about $550 million, which the artist didn't have, so a neighbor of mine offered to put up the $550 million. My point in mentioning this story is simply to point out that just because I have a neighbor who's willing and able to donate $550 million to facilitate having a statue placed outside the local branch of the library doesn't mean that that same neighbor, or any other neighbor for that matter, is willing to give Frank (that's me) $1,960.00 to purchase a preamp for transcribing old 78 RPM records. There's simply no relationship between the two things. This whole statue affair became a news item, by the way, because the artist in question had been accused of child molestation a few years earlier and some of the parents of children in the neighborhood were concerned that commissioning a person with such a background would be setting a bad example for the children who frequent the library after school. If I were offering it as a professional service, then there would be no question about getting the Vadlyd unit. In that case it may be worth it, but probably still unnecessary, and still a cost to your bottom line deducted from what you can charge. I won't expect you will ever have to make that decision however. I find it interesting that although you don't know me from the proverbial hole-in-the-wall, you imply that you have some knowledge of what the future holds for me and what decisions I will face in the future. -- Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY [Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.] Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/ [also covers AVCHD (including AVCCAM & NXCAM) and XDCAM EX]. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
I don't really understand why one would want to record
most (electrical) 78s with a flat response preamp, then fix in software. Since all eq curves are very very roughly a 6 dB per octave low pass filter at some frequency above 20 Hz, it would seem to me that the "base" would be just that rather than flat. It would bet much closer to putting all frequencies equally well in range of the ADC. There is also a list I found on the web that gives settings for recording with an RIAA preamp and a 1 octave graphic equalizer (which are, of course, not going to give a truly accurate result.) Doug McDonald |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
Doug McDonald wrote:
I don't really understand why one would want to record most (electrical) 78s with a flat response preamp, then fix in software. Because the alternative is to record it with an adjustable preamp, and making an adjustable preamp that is repeatable and accurate is not all that easy. Since all eq curves are very very roughly a 6 dB per octave low pass filter at some frequency above 20 Hz, it would seem to me that the "base" would be just that rather than flat. It would bet much closer to putting all frequencies equally well in range of the ADC. Right, there are most often one or two single-pole filters, at different frequencies. So you need to make the frequencies adjustable, and the filters possible to disable. You may want some notch filtering and a high-order rumble filter too. There are adjustable preamps that do this, and you can build your own or you can pay KAB to make one for you. There is also a list I found on the web that gives settings for recording with an RIAA preamp and a 1 octave graphic equalizer (which are, of course, not going to give a truly accurate result.) It's way, way far off... even worse than you'd expect. I did that once at a radio station where I had to do some rough dubs to tape and did not have proper tools, and I was really surprised how poor it was. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
45 to 78
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Doug McDonald wrote: I don't really understand why one would want to record most (electrical) 78s with a flat response preamp, then fix in software. Because the alternative is to record it with an adjustable preamp, and making an adjustable preamp that is repeatable and accurate is not all that easy. It doesn't get much easier than this: http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/.../Equaliser.gif A few years ago I would have said the majority of people in the audio business would have had no difficulty with a circuit like this. Now the proportion of people in the business who understand the fundamentals of analogue electronics and know how to use a soldering iron seems to be a dwindling minority. Since all eq curves are very very roughly a 6 dB per octave low pass filter at some frequency above 20 Hz, it would seem to me that the "base" would be just that rather than flat. It would bet much closer to putting all frequencies equally well in range of the ADC. Right, there are most often one or two single-pole filters, at different frequencies. So you need to make the frequencies adjustable, and the filters possible to disable. The basic recording characteristic of most electrical 78s is equivalent to just a single filter. The only ones which appear to have two bass roll-off filters are British H.M.V.s in the very early days of the W.E. recording system. The U.S. version of the equipment was set up with a single 3dB point at about 500 c/s but the U.K. version used 300 c/s and sometimes a second roll-off. At a guess, I would think this was because the changeover from acoustic to electrical reproduction took place much more rapidly in the U.S. - and a 500c/s characteristic would sound satisfactory on an electrical reproducer. In the U.K. a little more mid-bass was needed to make the recordings sound good on acoustic machines, but the 300c/s characteristic caused tracking and wear problems with low bass. A second time constant was switched into the microphone circuit to remove low bass when necessary. This was documented in the studio log sheets, because if a recording failed the 'wear test' it would have to be re-made with a more severe bass cut setting. The addition of an extra equalisation pole on H.M.V. records of that era can sometimes restore a more natural sound. Without the pole, the record sounds sort-of O.K. - but when the pole is switched in, you suddenly realise how much you were missing. You may want some notch filtering and a high-order rumble filter too. Good quality notches and rumble filters definitely count as more difficult to design, especially if they have to be adjustable and repeatable. There is also a list I found on the web that gives settings for recording with an RIAA preamp and a 1 octave graphic equalizer (which are, of course, not going to give a truly accurate result.) It's way, way far off... even worse than you'd expect. I did that once at a radio station where I had to do some rough dubs to tape and did not have proper tools, and I was really surprised how poor it was. I prefer to think of this item as a 'Graphic Effects Unit'. If you ask the question "What does it equalise?", the answer is "nothing"; it is the wrong tool for the job. As far as I know there has never been a 78 made with a frequency response which was created by a bank of overlapping medium-Q filters, so there are no 78s in existence which are amenable to equalisation in that way. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |