HydrogenAudio

CD-R and Audio Hardware => Vinyl => Topic started by: tinpanalley on 2012-02-24 00:05:35

Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-02-24 00:05:35
Hi all,
I'm taking a 78 recording (and several others that I'm transferring) and trying to clean it up. I'm capturing the audio with Audacity at 32-bit IEEE float, as a stereo recording from a 78 stylus on my turntable at 45 then changing the speed, finishing it off with inverting the RIAA curve.
My question is about cleaning up from this point forward understanding of course that one method simply won't work in every case.

I have Audacity, Sound Forge, DeNoise and ClickRepair. I've tried following this (http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Recording_78rpm_records) to a certain degree but I have no way of knowing if there's something I'm missing, if it's out of date, if there's a better way, etc. Mastering, I'm ok with. It's just the cleaning part I want to know with the aim of archiving these transfers.

Any thoughts?
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: DVDdoug on 2012-02-24 02:18:56
Fortunately, I've never tried cleaning-up a 78.    I just don't think I'd ever get the sound quality to the point to where I could enjoy the music.    And, I don't have access to any 78s anymore.

Here's (http://users.hal-pc.org/~clement/Restoring%20Old%20Recordings.htm) a web page that might have some useful information.  Probably the most important bit of information is, "The second problem with 78 rpm recordings is that they all had different equalizations."  You'll probably want to tweek the EQ by ear anyway for the best sound.

cliveb also has a web page (http://www.delback.co.uk/lp-cdr.htm) with all kinds of information and software recommendations for digitizing an cleaning-up LPs.  Most of it should apply to 78s.

I'm sure the tools you already have are adequate.  I use Clive's Wave Repair (http://www.delback.co.uk/wavrep/) ($30 USD) for cleaning-up LP transfers.  It works great in the manual mode, but its very time consuming.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: cliveb on 2012-02-24 08:27:02
cliveb also has a web page (http://www.delback.co.uk/lp-cdr.htm) with all kinds of information and software recommendations for digitizing an cleaning-up LPs.  Most of it should apply to 78s.

I've only ever transferred about a dozen 78s (for a neighbour) so I don't have a lot of experience.

Here's a few tips I can share:
1. Don't ever try to clean 78 records with an alcohol based solution. It will attack the shellac.
2. The groove width on 78s is much bigger than LPs. You must use a proper 78 stylus. But don't use a dedicated 78 cartridge, because they are mono devices; this is important because...
3. Record mono records in stereo and do all your cleaning up in stereo. At the very end, mix down to mono in software.
The reason fo doing things in stereo is that some damage may be on only one side of the groove wall, in which case you can copy/paste the undamaged signal from the other channel. (This applies to mono LPs as well as 78s, of course).
4. My view is that the quality that comes off 78s is low enough that worrying too much about getting the right EQ is pointless. Just adjust the tonal balance by ear.
5. A couple of the 78s I transferred had cracks all the way from the centre to the outer edge. Despite this, they were playable (producing a very big click on every revolution, of course). I found that spectral substitution was usually the best method of fixing those big clicks.

That's about the only additional advice I can give over and above the normal stuff that applies to LPs.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-02-24 10:33:19
I'm capturing the audio with Audacity at 32-bit IEEE float, as a stereo recording from a 78 stylus on my turntable at 45 then changing the speed, finishing it off with inverting the RIAA curve.
That's the wrong way around. You need to invert the RIAA curve on the original (45rpm) recording, correct the speed (to 78), and then apply whatever you think the correct curve is.

http://www.rfwilmut.clara.net/repro78/repro.html#eq (http://www.rfwilmut.clara.net/repro78/repro.html#eq)


About a decade ago, I found that the declicker from the Sonic Foundry NR-2 package (a directX plugin), and the decrackle from the Waves restoration bundle, worked really well on 78s if you didn't mind losing some of the higher frequencies (the decrackle part sounds like it uses a median filter in part). There may be far better options now. The good automatic options are expensive. The cheap automatic options introduce artefacts IMO. Manually declicking most UK 78s is hopeless - there are tens of clicks each second (i.e. there's a constant "crackle").

Found this while looking btw...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCgp0-vCK0I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCgp0-vCK0I)
from
http://ade42.blogspot.com/ (http://ade42.blogspot.com/)
...kind of appropriate for a user called tinpanalley. I can't make those 78s sound that good. That guy isn't telling how he did it (though sadly isn't making a living out of it either).

Cheers,
David.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-02-24 21:32:40
Thanks guys,
cliveb, very cool to hear from you directly. I'm definitely careful with washing the records. And I DO have a proper stylus. Ortofon 78 stylus, Ortofon stereo cartridge.
Thanks as well, 2B. Didn't realise I was doing it in the wrong order. And that guy's 78s sound great but I just want to hear them as good as I can. The idea is that I can keep the 78s unharmed and still hear them, making albums out of them digitally.

I'll try it this way and maybe I'll post some comparison files.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-02-27 22:46:05
Hey guys,
I've got my wires straightened now. I read more and now I realise why I have to do the RIAA inverting first, and THEN change speeds. Once I do that, I think I'm going to use DeNoise and Click Repair because I'm familiar with them and they have given me great sounding transfers in the past, albeit from 33-1/3s, but still.
- Just heard about a program called Wave Corrector (http://www.wavecor.co.uk/). Would you say it's better than DeNoise and ClickRepair?
- Do you think it's crucial that the click and noise removal be done before changing the speed from 45 to 78?

Thanks!
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: cliveb on 2012-02-28 08:58:10
- Just heard about a program called Wave Corrector (http://www.wavecor.co.uk/). Would you say it's better than DeNoise and ClickRepair?

Wave Corrector is a nice program. I wouldn't say it's better or worse than ClickRepair - just different in its balance of compromises. The interface is a little peculiar, but easy to understand once you've got used to it. It has some nice features, like being able to review each proposed repair and accept/reject/modify it. Something else good about Wave Corrector is that really big pops tend to get "repaired" by a very brief mute of the high frequencies, whereas most other declickers tend to replace big pops with "thumps". (My personal view is that you should first do a manual cleanup of big pops, using something like pasting over a similar undamaged section from nearby or perhaps by spectral substitution, BEFORE you let an automatic declicker anywhere near the file).

(Note: Wave Corrector has no connection with Wave Repair, just in case anyone confuses the two names).

I haven't tried DeNoise, so can't comment.

- Do you think it's crucial that the click and noise removal be done before changing the speed from 45 to 78?

I've never transferred a record at the "wrong" speed, so couldn't say for sure. But I suspect that it either doesn't matter, or will be dependent on the specific software package in use. If you're genuinely interested in getting absolutely the best results you can, you'll have to try it both ways with all your cleanup packages to find out.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-02-28 10:19:13
- Do you think it's crucial that the click and noise removal be done before changing the speed from 45 to 78?
It doesn't matter much, though any psychoacoustics should work better at the right speed, and it'll be quicker (fewer samples to process).

The EQ/RIAA status when declicking does make an audibl difference, but which is better depends on the software package and the clicks themselves. e.g. by processing without EQ/RIAA ("flat" = sounds like far too much treble) you may detect more moderate clicks, miss more large clicks, leave fewer high frequency artefacts but leave more low frequency bumps.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-02-28 18:31:55
I sometimes feel like I should have been a sound technician. The idea of the RIAA curve and how it is applied and then the idea of reversing it is fascinating to me. I'd love to really learn more about the science behind that.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: botface on 2012-02-28 19:27:51
I cleaned up several hundred 78's a few years ago. I don't have anything of substance to add to what's already been said but my experience was that if your original disc isn't in reasonable condition (I can't really define "reasonable") you run a high risk of simply replacing the odd noises that sometimes emanate from 78's with lots of digital artefacts, which sounds worse as they are "unreal" and you ear is immediately drawn to them. So, it's often difficult to decide when to cut your losses and just put up with a less than ideal result that's still noisier than you'd like but at least doesn't contain lots of odd sounds. If your original discs are in good shape and are later than 1926 (roughly), when electrical recording was introduced, it's quite surprising how good they can sound
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-02-28 20:45:29
What's the general thinking with clean-up of sound? Noise reduction first, click removal second? Or the other way around?
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: Glenn Gundlach on 2012-02-29 04:02:28
What's the general thinking with clean-up of sound? Noise reduction first, click removal second? Or the other way around?


Why don't you post a sample and let's have a 'contest' and hear who does the 'best' job? Whoever 'wins' can tell you the processes that were used. It actually sounds like fun.

Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-02-29 08:33:41
That could get tricky with copyrights. Wouldn't want to get the forum in any kind of hot water legally.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-02-29 09:13:22
What's the general thinking with clean-up of sound? Noise reduction first, click removal second? Or the other way around?
declick first, then noise reduction.

If you denoise first, the clicks punch holes in the noise reduction, which leave little "noise tails" even after you've subsequently removed the clicks.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-02-29 09:14:55
That could get tricky with copyrights. Wouldn't want to get the forum in any kind of hot water legally.
Less than 30 seconds is fine.

Pre-1961 records are all out of copyright in Europe. The compositions on them may not be.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-02-29 16:33:56
I've attached a typical early 1930s UK 78.

Poor raw transfer (at 78rpm, but using an old deck and a lousy RIAA pre-amp).

Restoration = auto declick, auto decrackle, a little auto denoise (I think - long time since I did it!), re-EQ (by ear - not advised!), convert to mono, a little reverb (in the "difference" channel only, so listening in mono removes the added reverb).

Cheers,
David.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: bandpass on 2012-02-29 17:04:24
Used to listen to this 78 (and the B-side) lots when I was knee-high to a grasshopper. I must say, you've ruined it—it doesn't sound right without the crackle at all!
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-02-29 17:17:10
Used to listen to this 78 (and the B-side) lots when I was knee-high to a grasshopper. I must say, you've ruined it—it doesn't sound right without the crackle at all!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CCI_m6wI90 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CCI_m6wI90)


The BBC had special vinyl copies which didn't have many crackles in the first place...
http://rfwilmut.net/podcasts/podcast15.html (http://rfwilmut.net/podcasts/podcast15.html)

Cheers,
David.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-02 21:32:44
Ugh... I transferred a bunch of 78s the other night using Audacity and I don't know if the files I saved had the RIAA inverted or not. Grrr.... 
I guess I have to start again cause there's no way to know if I did it or not. I thought I did but now I don't know.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-03-03 18:52:25
there's no way to know if I did it or not
?!?! They sound completely and utterly different. There's 20dB less bass and 20dB more treble if you've removed the curve. This isn't subtle.

Cheers,
David.

Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: markanini on 2012-03-03 20:10:02
Definitely not subtle. Check this out though: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/78rpm_playback_curves (http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/78rpm_playback_curves) Theres a shitload of de-emphasis curves for 78rpm's.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-05 00:42:37
Am I crazy to think that when I invert the RIAA curve the sound gets worse? The surface noise becomes far more prominent. I would imagine however that underneath that noise, the music itself is also having certain elements amplified and elevated but it's harder to tell under the amplified noise (A bit like trying to bring up the levels on a digital picture and battling with not blowing out the pixels to the point where you can see them?)
In any event, all other editing of the sound will clearly have to be done by my own ear but it IS safe to assume that ANY 78 needs the RIAA curve inverted right?
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: Porcus on 2012-03-05 01:57:00
Am I crazy to think that when I invert the RIAA curve the sound gets worse? The surface noise becomes far more prominent.
Well the EQ applied to the signal before the master (and which you have to apply to cancel the EQ applied in your phono stage), tilts the frequency response. Less bass, more treble. That's part of the idea; the bass in the vinyl should be down at a level where it wouldn't bounce the needle out of the groove, and treble should be amplified (still in the vinyl) to raise above the surface noise. If your old recordings did not have much treble, then what you are amplifying is main part noise, not much music.


Quote
In any event, all other editing of the sound will clearly have to be done by my own ear but it IS safe to assume that ANY 78 needs the RIAA curve inverted right?

They were recorded with other EQ curves -- at least, after electric amplification was introduced. You should apply the inverse RIAA curve to compensate for what your phono stage does, and then you should apply the masterhouse-specific curve to equalize what that record company did before pressing. You might as well implement the difference (correct curve minus RIAA curve) -- one per record. Whether applying the RIAA inversion only, is better or worse than zero -- I have no idea at all!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization#History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization#History) leads you to
http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelprestype/s...restoration.pdf (http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelprestype/sound/anaudio/analoguesoundrestoration.pdf) . Not even the “78” was universal!
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-05 02:24:05
I'm not understanding how to create my own curves, though. The RIAA curve is programmed into Audacity and I see the values other label curves have but I don't get how to turn those values into curves?
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: botface on 2012-03-05 09:15:58
I'm sure your instinct is to try to recover the original sound of these records as accurately as possible but, as you're finding, that isn't straightforward - especially as different eq curves were used by different companies over the years. Ultimately your ears are the best judge.

In many ways the RIAA eq is doing you some favours. It reduces "treble" and hence noise and gives you a bass lift. If you don't like the result. You have a few of options. Reverse the RIAA eq as you're trying to do and re-eq it to your own taste. Record it flat in the first place - maybe use a mic preamp that won't have RIAA eq built in - then eq to your own requirements. Or just play around with whatever you've captured to try to improve it.

I'm reluctant to give you any specific advice because almost all of my experience was with one label's records from the mid 1920's so it may not be relevant to the ones you're working with. And as I said in an earlier post, the condition of the records has a very big influence on the tools you use and the final result. One thing I found helpful though was to high pass at around 110hZ or so (the actual frequency is best chosen by ear) as anything below that is likely to be noise and in any case it makes the sound a bit less "muddy". Also when eq'ing remember that you can lower some frequencies. You don't always have to be boosting levels. You might also find it helpful to listen to some professionally restored 78's - there's lots of stuff around on CD that are very cheap - and try to produce a similar sound. Or have a look at the frequency distribution in your audio editor and try to reproduce it.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-05 18:47:15
Ultimately your ears are the best judge.

That's exactly what I'm finding.
Guide my thinking here.... In understanding the RIAA inverting, is it true that every device that I can use today to capture vinyl will have RIAA equalization built into it and therefore will have to have those values inverted? Or is it that the devices are the same as before but the old recordings were mastered with a certain EQ (specifically 78s)?

And finally, what is being lost by not inverting the RIAA curve? I don't seem to understand that. The 78s I capture sound better without it inverted. Unless my ear is wrong which is totally possible.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: Porcus on 2012-03-05 19:43:28
Except the oldest, the 78's had some EQ applied and should have  some EQ applied upon playback. That EQ is not the RIAA curve, but the RIAA curve may very well (for all that I know) be better than nothing.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: botface on 2012-03-05 20:11:59
Ultimately your ears are the best judge.

That's exactly what I'm finding.
Guide my thinking here.... In understanding the RIAA inverting, is it true that every device that I can use today to capture vinyl will have RIAA equalization built into it and therefore will have to have those values inverted? Or is it that the devices are the same as before but the old recordings were mastered with a certain EQ (specifically 78s)?

And finally, what is being lost by not inverting the RIAA curve? I don't seem to understand that. The 78s I capture sound better without it inverted. Unless my ear is wrong which is totally possible.

Yes, pretty much any electrical device intended for vinyl playback will have the RIAA eq built in. In crude terms the bass is reduced and the treble increased when the disc is cut and the bass is boosted and the treble reduced on playback. So, you should end up with the original tonal balance but you have reduced noise (which is more noticeable at higher frequencies) along with the "enhanced" treble. I believe The RIAA curve became the standard in the late 50's.

The problem for 78 replay is that they pre-date vinyl and there was no standard in place. Each company did what they thought best - this wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization) tells you more. So, if you play back a 78 on equipment intended for vinyl replay the wrong inverting eq curve will be applied. If it matters to you that much you may well be able to find out what eq was applied to your records during manufacture (try Google). You can then reverse the RIAA eq and apply the correct eq or by comparing the eq used in manufacture to the RIAA curve, have a stab at correcting the difference to try getting back to how it should be. Some people try to avoid all of that by recoding flat - usually via mic preamps - and then applying the correct eq. Personally, I find that all a bit too much trouble and I just use the RIAA eq'd capture as a base and adjust by ear to achieve what sounds good to me. It's probably a million miles away from "accurate" but 78's aren't exactly hi-fi to start with so I don't worry about it.

If you don't invert the RIAA eq your recordings will have a bass lift - often desirable, as long as it isn't overdone - and less treble, which in the case of 78's is where a lot of the noise is most apparrent, which is also desirable. That may be why you prefer them without the RIAA being reversed
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-06 07:08:37
Check this out though: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/78rpm_playback_curves (http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/78rpm_playback_curves) Theres a shitload of de-emphasis curves for 78rpm's.

I have no idea how to take the values of these curves and plot them on a graph to create my own curves to apply to a recording. Can anyone help?
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: AndyH-ha on 2012-03-06 09:44:42
Just so you know, there are more than a few phono preamps for 78s on the market. Some will provide just about every, if not every, EQ ever used on commercial pressings, some are limited to just the most common EQs.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-06 17:09:59
Just so you know, there are more than a few phono preamps for 78s on the market. Some will provide just about every, if not every, EQ ever used on commercial pressings, some are limited to just the most common EQs.
Thanks! That's really cool but I couldn't BEGIN to discern which brands were good, how to compare one from the other, etc. Plus if the curves can be applied digitally in Sound Forge or Audacity or something, it would be cheaper for me.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: Porcus on 2012-03-06 19:57:48
Check this out though: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/78rpm_playback_curves (http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/78rpm_playback_curves) Theres a shitload of de-emphasis curves for 78rpm's.

I have no idea how to take the values of these curves and plot them on a graph to create my own curves to apply to a recording. Can anyone help?


I don't use this feature, but ... http://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=35665 (http://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=35665) ? http://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=33824 (http://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=33824) ?
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-06 20:34:39
Wow... gets pretty intense. Ultimately, these are 78s. And once the RIAA curve is reversed (if its even deemed necessary) an understanding of the music, how it was meant to sound, etc and getting it to the point one wants might be the only important thing, I'm thinking. I don't know. I'd love to say: RIAA done, now it's a Decca so I apply the Decca curve, and that's that.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-03-07 10:22:07
Except the oldest, the 78's had some EQ applied and should have  some EQ applied upon playback. That EQ is not the RIAA curve, but the RIAA curve may very well (for all that I know) be better than nothing.
It's a lot closer than nothing! For most records in most frequency ranges at least. There are exceptions.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-03-07 10:26:35
You didn't follow the links posted earlier...

From http://www.rfwilmut.clara.net/repro78/repro.html (http://www.rfwilmut.clara.net/repro78/repro.html)
Quote
Not many people have suitable preamplifiers: it is possible to transfer 78s using the usual RIAA equalization for LPs and then convert. Equalizer (http://www.clickrepair.net/software_download/equalizer.html) by Brian Davies is free and will convert RIAA or flat (unequalized) to a number of other equalizations. If you have transferred a 78 at a lower speed and then speeded it up in an audio editor it will also adjust the equalization to suit. Prior to this being available I worked out some figures, and I have left them posted here (http://www.rfwilmut.clara.net/repro78/computer.html) in case anyone wants to experiment with them.


You can't just remove the RIAA curve and leave it at that. You'll be worse than you started.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-07 20:08:22
You can't just remove the RIAA curve and leave it at that. You'll be worse than you started.

Ok, and I'm reading about the curves but, for example, I'm doing some Capitol 78s from the 40's. What curve do I apply for those? I have a list of tons of curves but I don't understand how to plot those figures onto a chart to save that curve?
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: DVDdoug on 2012-03-07 22:44:23
Quote
I'm doing some Capitol 78s from the 40's. What curve do I apply for those?
I just don't think it's that critical (or optimal) to find the original EQ curve.    I think you'll get the best results by ear.

What's your actual goal?  Do you want the best sound (I'd be going for the best sound to my ear).  Or, do you want to accurately duplicate what someone would have heard on their equipment in the 40s?  i.e. What the record producer expected/wanted the listener to hear?

Think about the equipment it was designed to be played on.  A mono tube-amp, probably with a single "full range" speaker (no woofers or tweeters).    This was before "high fidelity", and I assume the record production goal was to get the best "vocal clarity" on equpment of the day.  If you perfectly reverse the recording curve, it's probably not going to sound that good, especially on modern full-range equipment. 

The older 78s were played on gramaphones with an acoustic horn used as a speaker/amplifier.  If you want to duplicate that sound, your EQ curve would have to simulate the (unknown) acoustics of that set-up.  But, that might not give you the best sound.    Inverting the recording-curve and playing through a modern more-flat system probably won't give the best results either.   

So, I'd start with RIAA and adjust by-ear from there.    (I know some people don't like to mess with the original sound, but I sometimes add a little high-end to older dull-sounding LPs, because it sounds better to me than the "correct" RIAA equalization.)
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: Porcus on 2012-03-07 22:57:26
Now remember that the OP did the recording at 45rpm, which means that the RIAA EQ curve will be moved some three quarters of an octave up when the speed is adjusted back up. (BTW, as in a reference I left, it isn't so that '78' was fixed at 78!)
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-07 23:02:59
So, I'd start with RIAA and adjust by-ear from there.    (I know some people don't like to mess with the original sound, but I sometimes add a little high-end to older dull-sounding LPs, because it sounds better to me than the "correct" RIAA equalization.)

I've been reading for about 2 hours about all this and about curves (still not understanding how they're applied to an audio capture of a 78) and I think you're 100% correct. I think that...
a) trying to replicate what a completely analog phonograph horn sounds like is pointless. You can't replicate that sound created by a reproducer and vibrating through a large wooden case. I know, cause I have one and that sound is a unique thing that is the reason for owning a phonograph.
b) music of the day would have been mixed to sound good on an analog system and probably not what the industry typically balances for today (crappy iphone headphones and car stereos)
c) this kind of music restoration doesn't happen as often for this very reason. It doesn't JUST require a sound engineer but also a certain degree of knowledge of the time period and what music was meant to sound like.
To a certain degree, taking 78s that played on a phonograph and getting them to be listenable today through speakers is going to involve some improvisation if, like me, you want to reproduce an accurate sound and not necessarily a good remastered sound. Sorry don't know how else to put it. It's a bit to me like when a classic film is released with a new (and ridiculous) 5.1 mix when there was only ever center channel mono in the theaters of the time.
Now, how about the other point though, that sometimes I feel like the RIAA inverted makes the recording sound worse? Wouldn't it be best then to leave it alone without inverting the RIAA? On some really beaten up 78s it just accentuates the surface noise and I feel like it's killing any lower end that's there to a point that makes the whole song lose fidelity.

I appreciate the thoughts. I'm transferring a lot of my own 78s. Some of them really valuable cause I want to be able to listen to them in a row, as albums and saving the actual record for times when I really wanna hear my 1927 phonograph in my apartment.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: Porcus on 2012-03-07 23:23:33
You should of course keep the original file (both before and after 'cleaning up' ... the 'before' in case you screw up something during the process), so a good start would be to keep the rip with the RIAA curve (and if you do any speed adjustment but 78/45ths, then tag properly or keep a backup!), and you could always make adjustments later if the sound starts to annoy you.

A hint if you store in lossless formats: you could use one format for 'unprocessed' and one for 'processed'. Tags etc. may be accidentally deleted, as long as you stick to e.g. WavPack for unprocessed and FLAC for processed, you will always be able to tell which one was which.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-08 02:17:17
You should of course keep the original file (both before and after 'cleaning up' ... the 'before' in case you screw up something during the process)

I always keep a pretty strict chain of files while I work always keeping the one 'clean' capture and then adding my own lettering system as I go so I can jump to any level whenever I want. I use WAVs all the way. When I'm done I 'master' a WAV as well. Then, if I decide I'm happy, I keep the first capture, the cleaned up master, and a FLAC for listening.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-03-08 10:23:00
You can't just remove the RIAA curve and leave it at that. You'll be worse than you started.

Ok, and I'm reading about the curves but, for example, I'm doing some Capitol 78s from the 40's. What curve do I apply for those? I have a list of tons of curves but I don't understand how to plot those figures onto a chart to save that curve?

I'm going to post this link for the third time. If you don't follow it this time, I'm giving up!

http://www.clickrepair.net/software_download/equalizer.html (http://www.clickrepair.net/software_download/equalizer.html)

The only gotchas I found were that you may have to reduce the gain yourself manually (there's a setting, but it won't set it automatically to avoid clipping, so you'll have to set it yourself), and (on my system at least) you seem to have to pick the curves you want before loading the file - picking them after loading the file sometimes causes the previous set of curves to be applied instead. Which is very confusing!

Which ones to use? The choice between Blumlein and Westrex (at least for UK 78s) is explained here...
http://www.rfwilmut.clara.net/repro78/repro.html#eq (http://www.rfwilmut.clara.net/repro78/repro.html#eq)
Quote
78s: WESTREX (English Western Electric) for HMV 78s with triangle matrix code and English Columbias with a (w) matrix code. BLUMLEIN for HMVs with a square by the matrix number, and English Columbias with a ©, or in both cases with no code (post 1945) up to about 1953. BSI 78 for all post 1953 78s (in theory). HMVs with a diamond are American Victor recordings: use WESTREX.


You've already been pointed to this...
http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/78rpm_playback_curves (http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/78rpm_playback_curves)
...you can look up anything on there, and see how different it is from the "standard" curves. Unfortunately that table doesn't list the treble turn over frequency - quite an omission, because with it, you can make your own analogue circuit and/or create your own customer filter (in the equalizer software linked above - just type in the treble (=high) and bass (=medium) numbers, and the job is done! Few 78s use a LF roll off (=low) so you can leave that blank).

Hope this helps.

Very general rule (plenty of exceptions): the more modern the 78, the closer it is to RIAA, and the less it matters that you fix it.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-03-08 10:30:23
a) trying to replicate what a completely analog phonograph horn sounds like is pointless.
Agree. It's easy to do, but there's more information and fidelity in these record grove than a gramophone/acustoustic phonograph can reproduce (though larger EMGs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MA957TfmIs) and HMV re-entrants (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyGJsX-LJ6Y) do quite well).

However, within the limitations of the microphones of the time, the recording EQ was quite accurate. Especially early on, they didn't have many facilities to mess with it.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: knutinh on 2012-03-08 10:32:31
You should of course keep the original file (both before and after 'cleaning up' ... the 'before' in case you screw up something during the process),

I do a fair amount of photo editing, and really like the non-destructive side-car approach of e.g. Adobe Lightroom. You administer a database of untouched input files, and a matched database of editing recipies. If you change your mind about exposure, you simply move that slider, and everything else in the pipeline is repeated for the preview. If you want you can extract a subset of the edits and apply them to 100 images as a batch. As demosaicing processing improves, you can (at will) swap the process while still keeping your edits.

Is there something similar for audio? One would think that using VST-plugins or similar, you could get most jobs done inside one single application.

-k
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-08 19:10:30
"I'm going to post this link for the third time. If you don't follow it this time, I'm giving up!"
"You've already been pointed to this..."

I see, 2bdecided... you're one of those guys who thinks that people who don't understand things are such a nuisance that you have to point it out to them publicly. Go ahead, give up. If you bothered to read anything I've said, I've made it pretty clear several times that I am looking for something that helps me understand how I would translate the numbers you keep throwing at me into usable curves that I can program myself into an audio editing program. You can throw all the charts and explanations about RIAA you want at me and remind me what I've already been pointed to but it doesn't explain in any way how to turn them into curves for labels that aren't listed. All those specs mean nothing to me if I don't know how to plot them. Does that make sense to you? Do you get what I'm not understanding? Spare me the hollier-than-thou nonsense about how inconvenienced you are by having to repeat yourself when you're not even reading what my questions are. You gave me some useful info but spare me the other crap.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: DVDdoug on 2012-03-08 20:47:58
Quote
It's a bit to me like when a classic film is released with a new (and ridiculous) 5.1 mix when there was only ever center channel mono in the theaters of the time.
  Ha!  I've done that!    Well...  not with a classic film, but with a couple of rock concerts recorded in mono.  I did some EQ for a simulated-stereo effect, added some delay & reverb for rear channels, panned the talking-parts to the center, and panned the applause parts toward the rear.  Fun stuff!  Of course, the DVDs I made give the viewer a choice of original mono or synthesized 5.1 surround.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-08 21:24:43
That, at least, is adding to the atmosphere of a concert which was actually experienced by human ears. But those old films were recorded and mastered in mono and the sound was designed accordingly so everything would sound ok in theaters. It's like colorizing. Don't get me started...
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-03-08 22:39:37
"I'm going to post this link for the third time. If you don't follow it this time, I'm giving up!"
"You've already been pointed to this..."

I see, 2bdecided... you're one of those guys who thinks that people who don't understand things are such a nuisance that you have to point it out to them publicly. Go ahead, give up. If you bothered to read anything I've said, I've made it pretty clear several times that I am looking for something that helps me understand how I would translate the numbers you keep throwing at me into usable curves that I can program myself into an audio editing program. You can throw all the charts and explanations about RIAA you want at me and remind me what I've already been pointed to but it doesn't explain in any way how to turn them into curves for labels that aren't listed. All those specs mean nothing to me if I don't know how to plot them. Does that make sense to you? Do you get what I'm not understanding? Spare me the hollier-than-thou nonsense about how inconvenienced you are by having to repeat yourself when you're not even reading what my questions are. You gave me some useful info but spare me the other crap.

Why would you need to program these curves into audacity (or any other audio editor) when the software I linked to applies them for you and saves the output as a new wav file? It even has an "RIAA recorded at 45rpm sped up to 78rpm" source preset. You couldn't want more, and it'll be 100x harder trying to do this just in audacity. Save the audio editor for the "by ear" EQ tweaks after you've got the basic reply curves in place.

I'm sorry if I offended you. I wasn't trying to humiliate you - I was just trying to get through to you that you've been given the complete answer four times now, and have ignored it.

Good luck.

David.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-09 03:28:02
Why would you need to program these curves into audacity (or any other audio editor) when the software I linked to applies them for you and saves the output as a new wav file?

I've got Capitol, Pathe, Odeon, 4 kinds of Columbia, Okeh and severael more that don't appear anywhere in that software. Yes, I did actually install it. What do I do about those? How do I begin to know which one to choose. That's all I was asking. If I get an unrelated answer 3 times, I'll restate my question 3 times. If you don't know anything about CDs and you want to know how to hear one song over and over again and all I tell you is "set it to repeat" that's completely useless because you don't even know what "repeat" is, much less where to find it. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Thanks for the apology, sorry to snap like that but nothing is more infuriating on boards than people who sound like they wanna remind others how much they know about something. More often than not, you're not likely to get an apology. So, acknowledged, accepted, and forgotten. As long as you can forgive my reaction as well.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-03-09 11:44:43
I've got Capitol, Pathe, Odeon, 4 kinds of Columbia, Okeh and severael more that don't appear anywhere in that software. Yes, I did actually install it. What do I do about those? How do I begin to know which one to choose.
If they are on that long list (http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/78rpm_playback_curves), and if the list included both turnover frequencies (which it doesn't), you'd just type those two values in the high and middle values of a custom filter. Where LF shelving is specified, type that in as the lower number. Where it's not specified just use 20 (or 1). Job done.

Unfortunately, one of the turnover frequencies is missing from all entries in that list! So, I'd look at the values for the type you have, and pick whichever standard curve is closest.

There must be a simple calculation to figure out the exact correct turnover value from the 10kHz cut value, but that's beyond me. It's something like...
treble_turnover_frequency = 5.6 - (0.25 * cut_at_10kHz)
...but that's a pocket calculator guess, not a proper formula.


I can give you MATLAB code to generate the curves from the turnover values though. I've just found the formula in some old EE notes. It's the a=... part below...

Code: [Select]
% riaa2.m - plot amplitude against frequency of RIAA filter

f1=50; % lower bass turnover / "low frequency" (if none use 1)
f2=500; % bass turnover  / "middle frequency"
f3=2121; % treble turnover / "high frequency"

f=1:20000; % set up array with frequencies 1-20k to calculate response at each frequency

% calculate response
a=(1+i.*f./f2)./((1+i.*f./f1).*(1+i.*f./f3));

a=a./abs(a(1000));

% uncomment this line to calculate inverse curve...
%a=1./a;

% plot amplitude of result in dB (using 20*log10) on log frequency scale (using semilogx) from 20-20kHz
semilogx(f,20*log10(abs(a)))
xlabel('frequency / Hz')
ylabel('amplitude / dB')
axis([20 20000 -30 30])


...but you don't need it. Unless you really want to program the curve into audacity.



Be prepared for some records not to match the listed curve at all. Sometimes labels licensed recordings from other labels, or went to different studios for one session. In this case, the named curve for that label could be completely wrong for that recording. If it sounds completely wrong to you, have confidence in your ears, and try another. At this point, it really is educated guess work. Trying increasing or decreasing the turnover frequency until it sounds right.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
David.
P.S. forgotten.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: Porcus on 2012-03-09 12:21:17
(Mal)apropos: is there is any reason for applying EQ before cleaning up pops? (Edit: same goes for speed adjustment.)

Otherwise, I would suppose this would be a Great Idea [tm] for Mudlord to improve the http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_dsp_effect (http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_dsp_effect) component . (Do it tag-based!) Edit: Or maybe for foo_convolve.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-09 18:49:25
So, I'd look at the values for the type you have, and pick whichever standard curve is closest.

I really appreciate the effort to get me to understand this but I'm sorry it's just way too over my head.

Here, for example, are the numbers on that chart for Capitol:
Bass Turnover Frequency (Hz): 400
10 kHz Gain Rolloff (db): -12
Source: 3
And Equalizer gives me the option to enter numbers for High, Medium and Low Frequency. Can you see why I'm confused?
Questions:
- Is the bass turnover frequency the High, Medium, or low?
- How can I use 20 or 1 for LF shelving? Equalizer doesn't even let me enter a value for shelving. Also, I don't understand what these are referring to so I don't get why a variation of 20 - 1 isn't a big jump.
- How do I compare what I have to the curves present if they deal in different values?

I think I'm personally better off capturing the audio, inverting the RIAA curve, cleaning clicks and pops, and then speeding the 45rpm up to 78 and just adjusting by ear. I just don't see any other way.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-03-09 22:08:47
On this page...
http://www.rfwilmut.clara.net/repro78/repro.html#eq (http://www.rfwilmut.clara.net/repro78/repro.html#eq)
...compared with the labels in equaliser, high is called "Treble turnover", middle is called "Bass turnover", and low is called "Lower bass t/o".

That's at least easy, because it has all three numbers.

Where there's no Lower Bass turnover listed, using 1 or 20 is virtually the same because both 1Hz and 20Hz are below the audible range, so won't do anything.


Problem with this...
http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/78rpm_playback_curves (http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/78rpm_playback_curves)
...is that two out of three numbers are missing.

So, in your example...
Quote
Capitol:
Bass Turnover Frequency (Hz): 400
10 kHz Gain Rolloff (db): -12
Source: 3

Use 20 for Low (because it doesn't have one)
Use 400 for Medium (because that's what it says for Bass)
Use 2500 for High (because EMI LP has a -12dB cut at 10kHz, just like Capitol, and EMI LP has a treble turnover frequency of 2.5kz=2500Hz)
or use 2600 for High (because 5.6-(0.25*12)=2.6kHz=2600Hz - formula from my last post)

Or just use EMI (33) LP because it's almost the same numbers (see that long list). Or even RIAA because it's not that far out in this case (again, see numbers in list).

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-10 07:38:05
I just heard that whole post in the voice of Benedict Cumberbatch in Sherlock during one of the deductive reasoning sequences.
Brilliant. Thank you.

Now... one last question... 
Why is that these curves need to be applied? Here's my thinking, tell me where I'm wrong:
- The audio was recorded onto the original wax or shellac master with the thought it would be played on a phonograph through a reproducer and therefore needed a certain EQ in the studio
- Our contemporary machines not only do not know that EQ but also are adding RIAA's EQ
- The inverting of RIAA cancels out what our stereos do
Wouldn't that then leave the same sound that a phonograph reproducer and stylus would have picked up and sent through a phonograph horn?
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: Porcus on 2012-03-10 13:03:35
Yes, but:

- 30's and 40's recordings were -- I guess your mileage may vary here -- made for ampified reproduction, not for horn phonographs
- and in the phonographic horn era, fidelity was not that much of an issue: getting sound out was already a victory over nature. Just because they couldn't apply EQ without an amplifier, that doesn't mean the output was ideal.  Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramophone_record#Equalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramophone_record#Equalization) , quote: In 1926 Joseph P. Maxwell and Henry C. Harrison from Bell Telephone Laboratories disclosed that the recording pattern of the Western Electric "rubber line" magnetic disc cutter had a constant velocity characteristic. This meant that as frequency increased in the treble, recording amplitude decreased. Read also the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramophone_re...#Sound_fidelity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramophone_record#Sound_fidelity) part.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-12 19:54:22
Ok, so with 2bdecided's help I'll be doing the following:
- RIAA curve on the original (45rpm) recording
- correct the speed to 78
- apply the correct curve
And I'll be doing my click repair and noise reduction right after applying the RIAA inverted curve (so after step 1 in this case) because I think it does a better job repairing at the slower 45.

Does that sound alright?
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-03-12 20:13:05
Answering your previous point...

I don't know the full story, but I believe the basic 6dB per octave curve comes from the amplitude <> velocity conversion inherent in many pick-up types. If you double the frequency, but maintain the amplitude, the needle moves twice as far per second (because there are twice as many back/forth wiggles) = twice the signal from most pickups. If you double the frequency, and try to keep the needle movement amount the same, the amplitude will have to halve (twice as many wiggles + half the amplitude) = same amount of signal from most pickups.

So the basic response curve, falling 6dB per octave top left to bottom right on a graph, is due to this.


The various different kinks that are put into the middle of this graph by various choices of turnover frequencies are different attempts to twiddle this basic 6dB per octave curve to cope with various amounts of bass + treble that various recording companies wishes to put onto records while maintaining a reasonably close groove spacing / long recording time. There was also the need to avoid huge bass excursions (which cause needles, of any type, to jump).

There must have been some attempt to make records match gramophones, and radio-gramophones match records, from each company. Especially in the UK, all the largest companies made both.

Maybe someone knows more?

Cheers,
David.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: pdq on 2012-03-12 20:14:08
Doing click repair after step 1 also means that you will be processing unequalized data. Are you sure that is what you want?

It means that if you listen to the effect of click removal you will be listening to a version with greatly exaggerated high frequencies.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-03-12 20:17:37
I'd fix the speed first, then run it through equaliser to remove RIAA and apply correct EQ, then declick etc.

Try it other ways as a test if you want, but unless you have a weird declicker, the above is usually the easiest and best.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-12 20:31:51
I'd fix the speed first, then run it through equaliser to remove RIAA and apply correct EQ, then declick etc.

Confused a bit... I was going by what you said earlier... "That's the wrong way around. You need to invert the RIAA curve on the original (45rpm) recording, correct the speed (to 78), and then apply whatever you think the correct curve is."
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: Porcus on 2012-03-12 21:03:52
I'd fix the speed first, then run it through equaliser to remove RIAA and apply correct EQ, then declick etc.

Confused a bit... I was going by what you said earlier... "That's the wrong way around. You need to invert the RIAA curve on the original (45rpm) recording, correct the speed (to 78), and then apply whatever you think the correct curve is."

You're right about this. RIAA inversion before speed adjustment.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-12 21:18:12
Doing click repair after step 1 also means that you will be processing unequalized data. Are you sure that is what you want?

My thinking with 78s is that doing click repair after RIAA but before anything else allows the software to run click detection at 45 and picking up things it might miss going at 78. Then once clean(er), I can speed it up and EQ if necessary. Is there any problem with that line of thinking? My only question is: does going at 78 and having the clicks be at a significantly higher frequency than the music make them easier to detect than if they're going so slow that they could be confused for being part of the music? Or maybe it doesn't work like that?
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: pdq on 2012-03-12 23:49:06
The music and clicks would both be moved to higher or lower frequencies together. It should have no impact on the ability to distinguish between them, unless the software makes assumptions about what frequencies are audible.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-13 03:19:41
Ok so FINALLY cleaned everything up but unfortunately ended up with audio that's about 3db quieter. I guess that makes sense with all the cleaning. Is it ok to raise the levels a bit or does that do something awful to the file?
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: Glenn Gundlach on 2012-03-13 03:57:54
Ok so FINALLY cleaned everything up but unfortunately ended up with audio that's about 3db quieter. I guess that makes sense with all the cleaning. Is it ok to raise the levels a bit or does that do something awful to the file?


I used to be a purist and not touch an audio level in digital. I now do it all the time similar in concept to replay gain but my level changes work everywhere, not just compatible players. If you're not comfortable with it, change the level and save with a new file name. My guess is you won't be able to tell the difference. BTW I've used CoolEdit and then Audition (same thing, new owner) exclusively since 1998 - currently Audition 3.0

Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-03-13 09:56:46
I'd fix the speed first, then run it through equaliser to remove RIAA and apply correct EQ, then declick etc.

Confused a bit... I was going by what you said earlier... "That's the wrong way around. You need to invert the RIAA curve on the original (45rpm) recording, correct the speed (to 78), and then apply whatever you think the correct curve is."

You're right about this. RIAA inversion before speed adjustment.
Only if the only thing you have available is the inverse RIAA curve

Equaliser helpfully has a "RIAA curve that was recorded at 45rpm then sped up to 78rpm" inverse curve, so this will work just fine.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-03-13 10:02:52
Doing click repair after step 1 also means that you will be processing unequalized data. Are you sure that is what you want?

My thinking with 78s is that doing click repair after RIAA but before anything else allows the software to run click detection at 45 and picking up things it might miss going at 78. Then once clean(er), I can speed it up and EQ if necessary. Is there any problem with that line of thinking? My only question is: does going at 78 and having the clicks be at a significantly higher frequency than the music make them easier to detect than if they're going so slow that they could be confused for being part of the music? Or maybe it doesn't work like that?
It depends entirely on your declicker.

If a particular declicker worked better at half speed with the treble boosted, the declicker author could build that processing in, couldn't they? Not to say that they would. Some declickers do seem to need a bit (or lot) of help.

Some of the best delickers understand some psychoacoustics. That'll be partly broken by running at completely the wrong speed + EQ.

Ok so FINALLY cleaned everything up but unfortunately ended up with audio that's about 3db quieter. I guess that makes sense with all the cleaning. Is it ok to raise the levels a bit or does that do something awful to the file?
You can do what you like to the levels, as long as they don't clip. Peak normalising everything is fine, though you'll probably end up with different tracks sounding different loudness. I'd use ReplayGain, but then I would say that . Quickest thing is to run Wavegain (http://members.home.nl/w.speek/wavegain.htm) across all the files, though this may still leave them all quieter than you want (though all roughly the same loudness).

Cheers,
David.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: Porcus on 2012-03-13 10:12:27
Equaliser helpfully has a "RIAA curve that was recorded at 45rpm then sped up to 78rpm" inverse curve, so this will work just fine.


Good! Are there then any phase issues (or others) which would make it beneficial to actually apply only the difference EQ curve once?

(I'd bet it won't matter anything for even the highest-fi 1933 '78 ...)
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-03-13 11:45:32
Equaliser claims to get the phase right too, though I haven't checked myself.

(I'm not plugging this software, honest - I hadn't heard of it myself until this thread!)

Cheers,
David.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-13 19:06:23
Ok, I'll increase levels on my own without clipping. Just want to get them peaking at 3db to avoid having to crank the speakers. But it sounds great.
Applied inverted RIAA, sped up to 78, applied the custom "Capitol EQ" 2bdecided helped me with, removed clicks and noise, sounds wonderful. A far jump from the beaten up original. It's just a little quiet.

(...still think the song sounds a bit better without the RIAA curve inverted though. Seems to lose too much bass. More than what sounds appropriate. I guess that's where the tweak by ear comes in. Maybe a bass boost.)
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-03-14 10:49:44
Yes, I usually find the "correct" curve to be lacking in bass. Not always, but mostly. Some re-issues of 78s (especially some American ones from the 1970s/80s) boost the bass by a ridiculous amount.

It's quite hard to judge by ear though. Do the best you can, but keep the previous version in case you decide you can do better later (e.g. when you change stereo or headphones).

FWIW I find it really difficult because I'm so used to listening to my records with the RIAA curve applied. It's only through the PC that I have access to the correct curves. I can hear that the treble especially is more natural with it corrected, but it's not what I'm used to from my favourite records.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: Porcus on 2012-03-14 10:57:38
(I am still a bit surprised that I don't find a readymade equalizer tagging scheme upon first googling!)
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-14 17:20:26
(I am still a bit surprised that I don't find a readymade equalizer tagging scheme upon first googling!)

Not sure I get what that means...
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: botface on 2012-03-14 18:52:58
FWIW when I was doing my major "78 project" I was in touch with collectors all over the world. They all had several different size/shape styli for different labels/periodsbut invariably listened via RIAA eq. I guess that's partly because RIAA was effectively a default being built in to every amp that had disc replay capability. But knowing the lengths some of them went to in pursuit of their hobby I'm sure they would have spent whatever was necessary to get the right eq if they thought it mattered that much - or maybe they were more interested in the music than the technicalities as 2B says
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-03-14 19:38:25
FWIW when I was doing my major "78 project" I was in touch with collectors all over the world. They all had several different size/shape styli for different labels/periodsbut invariably listened via RIAA eq. I guess that's partly because RIAA was effectively a default being built in to every amp that had disc replay capability. But knowing the lengths some of them went to in pursuit of their hobby I'm sure they would have spent whatever was necessary to get the right eq if they thought it mattered that much - or maybe they were more interested in the music than the technicalities as 2B says
You may have just known the wrong collectors. The two I know with many styli also have dedicated analogue pre-amps giving any possible curve.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: botface on 2012-03-15 18:36:46
FWIW when I was doing my major "78 project" I was in touch with collectors all over the world. They all had several different size/shape styli for different labels/periodsbut invariably listened via RIAA eq. I guess that's partly because RIAA was effectively a default being built in to every amp that had disc replay capability. But knowing the lengths some of them went to in pursuit of their hobby I'm sure they would have spent whatever was necessary to get the right eq if they thought it mattered that much - or maybe they were more interested in the music than the technicalities as 2B says
You may have just known the wrong collectors.
Cheers,
David.

I don't think so. They were mainly the people behind the standard discographies covering the early jazz and dance band eras in the UK, North America/Canada and parts of Europe. Actually it's just occurred to me that maybe they weren't bothered about the correct eq as so much of their collections was "pre electric". Unfortunately I think they're all dead now so I can't check with them
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-15 19:40:16
I'm gonna get in touch with someone I know in England who's been working on 78 restorations for some time. Gonna ask him some questions.
But, this has become an interesting thread.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-15 20:10:20
Just double checking.... it's RIAA inverting AND then an EQ applied right? Not one or the other?
One other thing... why is it that you can use 45 and LP figures to apply to a 78 like you did in the case of Capitol to get the Treble turnover? Why does that work if they're different formats?
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: Porcus on 2012-03-16 01:07:25
Just double checking.... it's RIAA inverting AND then an EQ applied right? Not one or the other?


Yes. RIAA inversion to revert what your phono input did, EQ to do what a corresponding ('correct') phono input would have done.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-16 01:34:04
Just double checking.... it's RIAA inverting AND then an EQ applied right? Not one or the other?

Yes. RIAA inversion to revert what your phono input did, EQ to do what a corresponding ('correct') phono input would have done.

Just in case I never mentioned it, I am going into my computer through a USB Phono Plus (http://artproaudio.com/discontinued_products/discontinued_products/product/usb_phono_plus_v2/). I'm sure that's irrelevant just didn't want you to think I was going with RCA cables straight into my computer.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: Porcus on 2012-03-16 12:18:30
Just double checking.... it's RIAA inverting AND then an EQ applied right? Not one or the other?

Yes. RIAA inversion to revert what your phono input did, EQ to do what a corresponding ('correct') phono input would have done.

Just in case I never mentioned it, I am going into my computer through a USB Phono Plus (http://artproaudio.com/discontinued_products/discontinued_products/product/usb_phono_plus_v2/). I'm sure that's irrelevant just didn't want you to think I was going with RCA cables straight into my computer.


I guess pretty much everyone assumed you were using a phono stage input which applies the RIAA EQ (whether the signal from there goes to line input or USB input on your computer is irrelevant for EQ). And this device does that (I looked up the manual). So yes, you want to invert this RIAA EQ curve and then apply the correct EQ.

(Had you attempted to plug your turntable RCA's in the line inputs or microphone inputs of your computer's soundcard (and then you would have had to rally off your (electronic) volume knob to beyond 11), there would not have been applied any RIAA EQ to invert.)
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-16 14:57:15
(Had you attempted to plug your turntable RCA's in the line inputs or microphone inputs of your computer's soundcard (and then you would have had to rally off your (electronic) volume knob to beyond 11), there would not have been applied any RIAA EQ to invert.)

Ok, cool. Wasn't aware of that. I assumed that even the PCs sound card would have applied something. But I guess if it doesn't have a proper phono input it would never give it the proper signal boost.
Anyway, everything is sounding great. Considering the condition of these Capitols I'm doing right now. With these ones, it's either TONNES of surface noise or a bit of phasing from noise removal. But at least then, you can hear the music.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: Porcus on 2012-03-16 15:33:01
I assumed that even the PCs sound card would have applied something.


For all that I know, there might be ones that do. But the typical line-in takes about 1 volt input, microphone in the 0.01 to 0.10 range, and turntable pickups 0.001 to 0.005 (with the low-output moving coils being like 1/10 of this again), so the usual assumption is that users simply do not hook up turntables to them.

Anyway, you have a dedicated phono preamp with RIAA equalization, so what you will get into your computer will have a RIAA curve applied.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-16 20:08:44
Can't thank all you guys enough for your help. I feel like I've learned so much about 78s and audio digitising.
I gotta say, I must be nuts, cause I think the sound of this Decca I'm doing is infinitely better with the RIAA curve. But clearly the RIAA curve has to be inverted. Therefore, perhaps all it needs is to have some bass added. This is where playing it by ear and knowing the music is essential, I guess.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: Porcus on 2012-03-16 20:21:32
I gotta say, I must be nuts, cause I think the sound of this Decca I'm doing is infinitely better with the RIAA curve. But clearly the RIAA curve has to be inverted.


Better with the RIAA curve than without, or better with the RIAA curve than with the Decca curve? (Again, these are in part compensatory.)
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-16 20:31:00
Better before inverting the RIAA curve. Trust me, I know it's not supposed to have maxed out bass like a rap song, but the stand-up bass in this song goes from being present to non-existent.
Let's put it this way... when the bass sounds better on my phonograph, something's clearly not working.
(before you ask... I keep my levels flat on my PC)
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: Porcus on 2012-03-16 20:49:18
Better before inverting the RIAA curve.


... than (I) after inverting the RIAA curve, or (II) after inverting the RIAA curve AND applying the Decca curve?

Once again: Both 78s and LPs have the bass attenuated.
Your phono stage boosts the bass up to what an LP should have. RIAA inversion removes this bass boost.

That's why you want to apply the Decca curve before complaining  .
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-16 21:03:53
... than (I) after inverting the RIAA curve, or (II) after inverting the RIAA curve AND applying the Decca curve?

No, no. I'm not explaining myself properly. The sound that comes off the record, through the phono preamp as is with nothing done to it, no RIAA inversion, nothing. THAT sounds better when sped up to 78. Than ANYthing else applied. I understand what inverting the RIAA curve does. But when it's inverted it loses all its range. Adding the Decca curve to it on top of that does nothing significant to the audio.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2012-03-19 12:07:11
... than (I) after inverting the RIAA curve, or (II) after inverting the RIAA curve AND applying the Decca curve?

No, no. I'm not explaining myself properly. The sound that comes off the record, through the phono preamp as is with nothing done to it, no RIAA inversion, nothing. THAT sounds better when sped up to 78. Than ANYthing else applied. I understand what inverting the RIAA curve does. But when it's inverted it loses all its range. Adding the Decca curve to it on top of that does nothing significant to the audio.


Your terminology could be confusing things. If you are passing a signal through a phono preamp, then by definition of the terms you are using, the inverse RIAA curve has been applied. If you are using a preamp with flat response such as a mic preamp, then the inverse RIAA curve is not being applied.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-03-19 14:33:21
Adding the Decca curve to it on top of that does nothing significant to the audio.
It can't do nothing, because it does this...
[attachment=6973:decca78.gif]
...but overall it's a lot less bass than RIAA.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-03-19 14:45:09
I don't think so. They were mainly the people behind the standard discographies covering the early jazz and dance band eras in the UK, North America/Canada and parts of Europe. Actually it's just occurred to me that maybe they weren't bothered about the correct eq as so much of their collections was "pre electric". Unfortunately I think they're all dead now so I can't check with them
Sadly, I've never known anyone that important personally (and I would love to have met Brian Rust!). The closest person I do know (and he's very much alive) plays his jazz (should be jass!) 78s on whatever he has to hand.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-19 15:10:55
Your terminology could be confusing things. If you are passing a signal through a phono preamp, then by definition of the terms you are using, the inverse RIAA curve has been applied. If you are using a preamp with flat response such as a mic preamp, then the inverse RIAA curve is not being applied.

Yes, except we had already established which preamp I was using. Anyway, it doesn't matter, I was just trying to say that in my unprofessional opinion and knowledge of the music of the time by that orchestra and that singer, that particular recording with the RIAA NOT inverted sounds more like the intended sound than when the RIAA is applied. And yes, even after applying the Decca curve. It simply never gets enough bass. It's just my own opinion, I could be wrong.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-03-19 18:05:12
Go on, post a raw capture (45rpm with RIAA intact, lossless, stereo, 30 seconds) and maybe people can see what their ears think?

Cheers,
David.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: Porcus on 2012-03-19 18:14:18
It simply never gets enough bass. It's just my own opinion, I could be wrong.


All recordings? I too think you should post a clip, hoping that there are people here who know what 78's really sounded like. I have to admit I don't.

Otto von Bismarck is quoted on saying that politics is the art of the possible. You might have to consider that the technology of those days was not about subwoofers. They might gladly have sacrificed bass (which wouldn't be reproduced well anyway) if they had microphones that made a more lifelike midrange ... well, closer to possible. Now should you 'repair' that with a real bass boost? I guess that is a matter of opinion.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-19 18:34:53
Now should you 'repair' that with a real bass boost? I guess that is a matter of opinion.

I completely agree. It's fine. I will adjust it according to what I think it should sound like. But I'm able to do so now with all the help you guys have given me. Especially on the curves.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: botface on 2012-03-20 09:24:37
I don't think so. They were mainly the people behind the standard discographies covering the early jazz and dance band eras in the UK, North America/Canada and parts of Europe. Actually it's just occurred to me that maybe they weren't bothered about the correct eq as so much of their collections was "pre electric". Unfortunately I think they're all dead now so I can't check with them
Sadly, I've never known anyone that important personally (and I would love to have met Brian Rust!). The closest person I do know (and he's very much alive) plays his jazz (should be jass!) 78s on whatever he has to hand.

Cheers,
David.

Out of interest I got in touch with the only one of those old guys that I know to still be alive - Jack Litchfield; author of The Canadian Jazz Discography. He spent a lot of time transferring his favourites from his collection to CD about 10 years ago. He told me :

[blockquote]"Other, more sophisticated, collectors of my ken use equalizers with many sliding controls to get the absolute best sound.

My philosophy was that, with my antique hearing, it didn’t make much difference."[/blockquote]

He also reminded me of something many collectors have said to me :
[blockquote]"Also, I wanted my CDs to sound just like my 78s, so I didn’t attempt to remove surface noise; I just cleaned  up the clicks."[/blockquote]
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-20 14:44:15
"Also, I wanted my CDs to sound just like my 78s, so I didn’t attempt to remove surface noise; I just cleaned  up the clicks."[/indent]
That's how I handle my LPs and my 78s. I know there are certain people who think there's no point if you're not going to clean it perfectly, but that's how I want my records to sound when I listen to them in a car or on my media player. Somebody once said to me, "You WANT them to sound like crap?" To which i just thought, if that's what you think, what are you doing in a forum about records?
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-20 21:40:16
Am I perhaps doing something wrong with Equalizer? I set everything up so that it will automatically invert the RIAA and change the speed and also add the curve I need but it won't do it. The new file seems unaffected.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-03-21 09:11:47
It doesn't change the speed. It can apply the appropriate curves for a file where you have already changed the speed.

There does seem to be some order of clicking buttons that means it doesn't do anything (when you'd expect it to). I haven't figured out exactly what though. Try loading the file, then (re?)selecting the EQ curves.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-21 16:39:06
It doesn't change the speed. It can apply the appropriate curves for a file where you have already changed the speed.

Oh. Then if those options are for the state of the original file coming in, why would it matter what your original file was? A curve is a curve isn't it? Why would this program apply the curve differently based on whether the original file was speed corrected or not?
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-03-21 16:50:19
It's for when you have already changed the speed.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-21 18:36:16
So under the original file drop-down, I should have been using RIAA 45-78 not flat. Great. Gotta start again.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-03-22 10:40:56
I'm confused - you said removing the RIAA curve didn't sound good to you - but if you had the original set to "flat", you weren't removing the RIAA curve.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-22 15:46:03
I was doing the RIAA inverting and speed adjustment in Audacity. I like the more direct interface there.
Then I was bringing the inverted and speed corrected file to Equalizer to apply the curves.
But I wasn't paying any attention to what setting the "Original Equalizer" was set to. I assume, since I didn't touch it, that it was on flat.

What I don't get is how it could make a difference anyway what speed the original file is at to apply a curve? Or for that matter whether the RIAA is applied.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: pdq on 2012-03-22 15:53:00
Each curve has a specific shape as a function of frequency. If you are at a different speed then the frequencies are all shifted, and each frequency is getting the wrong correction.

RIAA correction makes a huge difference to how it sounds. Failure to apply it or some other correction will leave you with practically no bass response.

Since you are still struggling with even the most basic concepts, I recommend that you just play with the equalization until it sounds the way you like and leave it at that.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-22 17:12:16
Well, I think I finally figured out what the problem was. I had inverted the RIAA curve and changed the speed. Then I was taking it into Equalizer and choosing RIAA + 45-78 because I was misreading the option as "what you've already done to it" and not "what you'd like to NOW do to it". Watching the curves move as I applied different options and rereading the manual clearly demonstrated to me that I was essentially applying even further RIAA inversion numbers and also treating the recording as though it was a 45 though it had already been changed to a 78.
I think this entirely accounts for the ear-piercingly high pitch of the hiss and high end of the recording and why it wasn't working for me.

I also think it's better to not have the gain at the default of -12dB. Not sure why -12 is the default.

Consequently, I was looking at the instructions for ClickRepair and Brian Davies suggests running the recording with RIAA equalization and at 45rpm through ClickRepair first, THEN resampling and equalizing, and THEN running through ClickRepair again particularly focusing on de-crackling. Ultimately, regardless of the 'recipe' as he refers to it for cleaning up the recording, he arrives at the same conclusion we all have which is that "restoration of old recordings is as much an art as a science".
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-28 14:51:21
There were some 78s recorded electronically and intended for electric record players that could play 78s. I assume they appeared commercially in the late 40s? Were any of those created with the RIAA EQ in mind? Or do no 78rpm records exist that were mastered with that in mind?
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-03-28 14:55:45
78s were recorded electrically from about 1925 and at least partly intended for electronic reproduction from about 1930.

I don't think any 78s (other than those released as specials after the 78 era was long gone) use the RIAA curve, but as you can see from the numbers on the various web pages linked in this thread, and the graphs that Equalizer will plot, some 78 curves are at least close, while others are miles out.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Cleaning up 78 transfers
Post by: tinpanalley on 2012-03-28 15:01:03
Thanks. I've been having a great time capturing and cleaning up these 78s now that I know how to decide on an EQ for all the labels. With one tiny exception which was for a Commodore record I have. Commodore doesn't appear anywhere on that list, they weren't around for very long though they recorded some really important sides. I'm just going to play that one by ear and adjust on my own.