[Cyberserf[_2_]]

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

[Mike Rivers]

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

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[PStamler]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[PStamler]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Trevor]

"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.

[Buzz]

"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

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

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

[Buzz]

"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