Recording from damaged 78rpm record
andrew
some records. These were made in America in 1942 by her brother who was
training as RAF bomber crew. He died shortly after.
I think they are directly scribed into the plastic which is in poor nick,
possibly some mould growth. The discs are "Zenith Universal Recorder" and
probably done in some sort of booth.
I shall try and record them directly to wav files but before I attempt that
what precautions need I take? I have a problem in that my record deck only
has 33 and 45 rpm. Was mono 78 simply an amplitude modulation by depth of
the needle?
AJH
Mike Clarke
> I shall try and record them directly to wav files but before I attempt
> that what precautions need I take? I have a problem in that my record deck
> only has 33 and 45 rpm. Was mono 78 simply an amplitude modulation by
> depth of the needle?
No, the groove wiggles from side to side and needs a much larger needle than
the stylus used for 33 and 45's. You could even hear the sound from a 78 by
sticking your thumbnail in the groove as the record was going round.
--
Mike Clarke
Jim Lacey
wrote:
The stylus tip radius needs to be larger for 78rpm records. I think
the only early recordings used "hill and dale" depth recording.
Andy Dee
A
geoff
<ne...@sylva.icuklive.co.uk> writes
You could always buy one of these
http://www.firebox.com/product/1401/USB-Turntable
prolly cheaper elsewhere and you can get 78 needles for them
--
geoff
Bioboffin
news:791tofF...@mid.individual.net...
If you use 'audacity' (free and legal) to record the music from your record
deck (or you might consider buying one of those cheap ion 'usb' decks, if
you have trouble interfacing with your PC), you will find that you can
record at a slow speed and correct to 78rpm speed. Works well - I have done
it with a few 78s which my mother bought during the war.
You can also use audacity to clean up some of the scratches.(This takes
quite a bit of skill and practice). Definitely worth the time to preserve
the history.
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/
--
John
PCPaul
If you don't have the right size and shape stylus, you tend to be playing
the muck at the bottom of the groove instead of the sound on the sides.
As others have said, play it at 45 and audio-process it up to the right
speed (somewhere around 78 - it varied *a lot*. Also make good use of
noise fingerprinting, scratch and pop removal etc. Audacity is a good
place to start.
Alternatively there are experts out there with the correct equipment and
experience to do it for you. For a fee, obviously.
fred
<J...@myhouse.invalid> writes
>
>If you use 'audacity' (free and legal) to record the music from your record
>deck (or you might consider buying one of those cheap ion 'usb' decks, if
>you have trouble interfacing with your PC), you will find that you can
>record at a slow speed and correct to 78rpm speed. Works well - I have done
>it with a few 78s which my mother bought during the war.
>You can also use audacity to clean up some of the scratches.(This takes
>quite a bit of skill and practice). Definitely worth the time to preserve
>the history.
>
>http://audacity.sourceforge.net/
>
o/p's existing deck through his amp to line out should be a no-cost
solution. The 45rpm playback with the existing small needle sounds ok
and can be speeded up. I had a 33/45/78 deck with just a single needle
yonks ago and made some recordings from 78s which sounded ok.
I was given a usb deck a while back and prefer to use it from the audio
outputs in the back, more flexible on lead length than the usb.
--
fred
BBC3, ITV2/3/4, channels going to the DOGs
jkn
33rpm.
Equalisation is the filtering of the signal according to frequency.
When recording, low frequencies are reduced in amplitude and high
frequencies boosted. On playback, the opposite occurs.
For 33/45rpm records the formula used for this is the RIAA standard.
Prior to this, there were any number of different equalisations
standard. You should be able to get an approximation to the one used
for recording by applying a filter to the save file (ie. you apply a
further equalisation *on top of* the RIAA equalisation that your
turntable/preamplifier will have applied, in order to achieve the
desired actual equalisation).
I can probably find a reference to sample 78rpm equalisations used, if
that's of interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalisation#Uses
is also of interest.
HTH
Jon N
The Natural Philosopher
And a fairly big needle
You CAN get compatible needles to plug into standard cartridiges, and
there are still decks around that do 78.
> AJH
Clot
Brilliant, thanks for that link. I've loads of LPs that I wish to put on the
PC and couldn't be bothered playing with converting. This appears to be just
the ticket.
Steve Walker
�59.99 at Maplins
SteveW
John Rumm
Worth mentioning that you may still get better results from micing up a
real 78 record player. The difference in the weight of the tone arm can
make recordings from modern decks sound very light and scratchy.
There is also commercial software:
that makes quite a good job of automatic scratch removal.
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
Devany
Try posting the same question in rec.audio.pro
You have two issues:
1. Getting the cleanest possible signal (audio) from the 78s
2. Post processing the signal.
The post processing is relatively easy (hm), well you can take as many
goes at is without damaging anything.
Getting the originals into digital format is the challenge, but I see
you've already spotted that.
I did a similar project recently, and bought a 78 player to make sure I
got proper results. What route you go down depends ultimately on the
value you place on the recordings.
geoff
Rumm <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> writes
>The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> andrew wrote:
>>> Whilst clearing out the loft at my mother's old house I have come across
>>> some records. These were made in America in 1942 by her brother who was
>>> training as RAF bomber crew. He died shortly after.
>>>
>>> I think they are directly scribed into the plastic which is in poor nick,
>>> possibly some mould growth. The discs are "Zenith Universal Recorder" and
>>> probably done in some sort of booth.
>>>
>>> I shall try and record them directly to wav files but before I
>>>attempt that
>>> what precautions need I take? I have a problem in that my record
>>>deck only
>>> has 33 and 45 rpm. Was mono 78 simply an amplitude modulation by depth of
>>> the needle?
>>>
>> Think its lateral.
>> And a fairly big needle
>> You CAN get compatible needles to plug into standard cartridiges,
>>and there are still decks around that do 78.
>
>Worth mentioning that you may still get better results from micing up a
>real 78 record player. The difference in the weight of the tone arm can
>make recordings from modern decks sound very light and scratchy.
>
>There is also commercial software:
>
>http://www.dartpro.com/
>
>that makes quite a good job of automatic scratch removal.
>
>
--
geoff
Adam Aglionby
If you want to get really serious Computer Enhanced Digital Audio
Restoration, CEDAR
Adam
geoff
<b89cd815-caf1-498d...@o36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Adam Aglionby <ledl...@gmail.com> writes
>Restoration, CEDAR
>
>http://www.cedar-audio.com
>
which he wants to restore in a sort of hobby fashion
Ask yourself if this really might be the best engineering solution, i.e.
cost effective ?
I rather think not, don't you ?
--
geoff
Adam Aglionby
> In message
> <b89cd815-caf1-498d-afb4-29b12d43d...@o36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
> Adam Aglionby <ledli...@gmail.com> writes
whoosh....
Adam Aglionby
> In message
> <b89cd815-caf1-498d-afb4-29b12d43d...@o36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Sorry thought heard a sound rush past.
To get the best source possibly non contact, laser reading might be
best before feeding to the CEDAR rack server:
About 14K USD apparently think CEDAR modules start at around 8K UKP ,
" best engineering solution" is undoubtedly CEDAR , its what others
seek to emulate.
At the less expensive end of things garbage in garbage out, getting
the best transcription of source means less cleaning up afterwards.
Convenience with a sub £60 tutntable, with built in sound card and EQ
as well, depends what your wanting to transcribe TBH...
Lot of good quality turntables go for little money nowadays and with a
decent cartridge will certainly make a lot better result.
Adam
meow...@care2.com
IIRC a wiki article on this was written, you might look at the
audacity wiki to see if its there.
Needle: 78s used a bigger needle, but can still be played with a
modern stereo needle. The profile will be wrong, but OTOH you'll not
be playing the badly worn parts of the groove. This is why studio
transcription is done with a fair range of needle sizes, picking
whichever one gives the best result for each record. You can get 78
styli for some modernish cartridges.
Equalisation: Audacity has several built in 78 eq curves. But...
1. if you change speed, your eq will be all wrong and none of the
curves apply, just have to do it by ear.
2. a novelty booth in 1940s is unlikely to have made any attempt to
conform to any of the eq schemes in popular use at the time.
Cleaning: old records can be cleaned, but NEVER use alcohol on 78s.
Since its not a moulded disc it wont be shellac anyway, but something
rather softer, so be even more wary about cleaning it.
Speed: Some pre-war discs were 80rpm, but I think by the 40s they'd be
78. OTOH a booth recording could easily have been a few rpm off and
have varied with cutter position. so there's lttle point getting fussy
about speed.
Audacity has pretty much everything you need to do the job.
NT
pjlu...@yahoo.co.uk
>It's still a slow, tedious and painful process.
I've been lazy. Most of the records I want to digitise are available
on the net in mp3 already..
Probably worth checking before you do your own.
If they're not of good enough quality THEN try it yourself.
pjlu...@yahoo.co.uk
Ignore me
Finding your recordings might be a bit tricky!
meow...@care2.com
snip
its ok for a 78 or two, they dont take long, but for bulk digitising
of vinyl media collections you're looking at maybe 4 hours per album
to do a decent job of it... not very practical.
NT
meow...@care2.com
> On 7 June, 23:37, geoff <ra...@kateda.org> wrote:
> > In message
> > <b89cd815-caf1-498d-afb4-29b12d43d...@o36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
> > Adam Aglionby <ledli...@gmail.com> writes
> >
> > >On 7 June, 21:13, John Rumm <see.my.signat...@nowhere.null> wrote:
> > >> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> > >> > andrew wrote:
> > >> >> Whilst clearing out the loft at my mother's old house I have come across
> > >> >> some records. These were made in America in 1942 by her brother who was
> > >> >> training as RAF bomber crew. He died shortly after.
> >
> > >> >> I think they are directly scribed into the plastic which is in poor nick,
> > >> >> possibly some mould growth. The discs are "Zenith Universal Recorder" and
> > >> >> probably done in some sort of booth.
> >
> > >> >> I shall try and record them directly to wav files but before I attempt
> > >> >> that
huge snip
> To get the best source possibly non contact, laser reading might be
> best before feeding to the CEDAR rack server:
physical needles push a fair amount of dust & dirt out of the way. A
laser interprets it all as sound instead.
NT
Toby
�49.99 At Aldi on Sunday!
Reports to work with 78's too
http://www.aldi.co.uk/uk/html/offers/2827_10015.htm
Toby...
RobertL
> > On 2009-06-07, Clot <clo...@ntlglobe.goon> wrote:
> > > geoff wrote:
> > >> <n...@sylva.icuklive.co.uk> writes
> > >>> Whilst clearing out the loft at my mother's old house I have come
> > >>> across some records. These were made in America in 1942 by her
> > >>> brother who was training as RAF bomber crew. He died shortly after.
>
> > >>> I think they are directly scribed into the plastic which is in poor
> > >>> nick, possibly some mould growth. The discs are "Zenith Universal
> > >>> Recorder" and probably done in some sort of booth.
>
> > >>> I shall try and record them directly to wav files but before I
> > >>> attempt that what precautions need I take? I have a problem in that
> > >>> my record deck only has 33 and 45 rpm. Was mono 78 simply an
> > >>> amplitude modulation by depth of the needle?
>
> > >> You could always buy one of these
>
> > >>http://www.firebox.com/product/1401/USB-Turntable
>
> > >> prolly cheaper elsewhere and you can get 78 needles for them
>
> > > Brilliant, thanks for that link. I've loads of LPs that I wish to put on the
> > > PC and couldn't be bothered playing with converting. This appears to be just
> > > the ticket.
>
> snip
>
> its ok for a 78 or two, they dont take long,
But you might have to splice them together. I remember an old 78
recording* where you could hear that the orchestra stopped dead at the
end of each side - the echo died away afterwards. You'd need to join
them up with an overlap.
Robert
* Beethoven's Eroica in fact
Steve Firth
> Whilst clearing out the loft at my mother's old house I have come across
> some records. These were made in America in 1942 by her brother who was
> training as RAF bomber crew. He died shortly after.
>
> I think they are directly scribed into the plastic which is in poor nick,
> possibly some mould growth. The discs are "Zenith Universal Recorder" and
> probably done in some sort of booth.
>
> I shall try and record them directly to wav files but before I attempt that
> what precautions need I take? I have a problem in that my record deck only
> has 33 and 45 rpm. Was mono 78 simply an amplitude modulation by depth of
> the needle?
These are fragile disks, playing them can cause damage so you need to be
fairly sure that you have things set up properly before you start. As
others have said, the stylus needs to be specifically designed for 78s.
Don't try using the 33/45 rpm stylus because it will go to the bottom of
the groove and cause damage or scrape up the muck.
Those Ion turntables are absolute rubbish, a waste of money in almost
very respect. If you could get hold of a 78 turntable + cartridge and
stylus with a pre-amp and feed that into the line input on your Mac you
would do much better. OTOH if you were familiar with audio equipment I
guess you would have worked this out for yourself.
A new 78rpm cartridge and stylus will cost about �150. A decent
turntable could be as low as �40 with tonearm, if you're lucky you might
get a cartridge with it.
Owain
> Worth mentioning that you may still get better results from micing up a
> real 78 record player. The difference in the weight of the tone arm can
> make recordings from modern decks sound very light and scratchy.
Or use some pennies and bluetack to weight the pick-up down.
Owain
meow...@care2.com
not if you want the genuine 78 experience :) I always thought they
made clasical utterly unworkable.
Why would anyone want to rip a classical track off 78s? Just about
everything on 78s is now public domain, and some of its available
online now, plus in some cases numerous derivative versions. And yes,
there is some good stuff on 78, just very very little.
NT
tonyjeffs
up to normal, you will lose the top frequencies. in accordance with
the ratio 45:78
I'd definitely obtain a 78rpm player.
Tony
meow...@care2.com
that would be true for vinyl, but not 78s. Their recorded bandwidth is
a long way shy of 20kHz.
NT
Dave Liquorice
> If you play them back at 45 and use software to speed the recordings
> up to normal, you will lose the top frequencies.
Explain?
Original recorded 78 sound = 5kHz
Played at 78, frequency reproduced = 5kHz
Played at 45, frequency reproduced = 2.88kHz
Digitally speed up by 1.73, frequency = 4.98kHz
Close enough for Jazz...
--
Cheers
Dave.
Dave Plowman (News)
<0ade9be0-a9e9-4abc...@d31g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
tonyjeffs <tony...@tonyjeffs.com> wrote:
> If you play them back at 45 and use software to speed the recordings
> up to normal, you will lose the top frequencies. in accordance with
> the ratio 45:78
Think that's apex over posterior. You might lose the extreme bottom end
through this - not the top. But it's very unlikely there is much of either
in this case.
--
*Go the extra mile. It makes your boss look like an incompetent slacker *
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
The Natural Philosopher
if that.
Actually you get *better* top frequencies that way...;-)
Dave Plowman (News)
The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> What top frequencies would those be then, on a 78rpm? typically 200-3khz
> if that.
Depends. 78s were actually produced much later than many think. Pye even
making them out of vinyl. 10kHz plus isn't unknown. But something out of a
booth could be no better than telephone quality.
--
*Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <h0lcmu$i5a$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> What top frequencies would those be then, on a 78rpm? typically 200-3khz
>> if that.
>
> Depends. 78s were actually produced much later than many think. Pye even
> making them out of vinyl. 10kHz plus isn't unknown. But something out of a
> booth could be no better than telephone quality.
>
speeches of his fathers.. and put them on cassette. I ran the whole
think straight of the replay head, as the electronics had died, and used
a graphic equaliser to try and get some sort of reasonable balance. ISTR
I built a basic equaliser as well..to cope with the innate equalisation.
To be honest it didn't replace what wasn't there in the first place, but
a reasonably hiss free and un-tinny tape resulted.
Dave Plowman (News)
The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > In article <h0lcmu$i5a$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> > The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> What top frequencies would those be then, on a 78rpm? typically
> >> 200-3khz if that.
> >
> > Depends. 78s were actually produced much later than many think. Pye
> > even making them out of vinyl. 10kHz plus isn't unknown. But something
> > out of a booth could be no better than telephone quality.
> >
> I once took some stuff off an old wire recorder for a friend..some
> speeches of his fathers.. and put them on cassette. I ran the whole
> think straight of the replay head, as the electronics had died, and used
> a graphic equaliser to try and get some sort of reasonable balance.
> ISTR I built a basic equaliser as well..to cope with the innate
> equalisation.
Good grief. I've only ever seen one in a museum. ;-)
> To be honest it didn't replace what wasn't there in the first place, but
> a reasonably hiss free and un-tinny tape resulted.
They must have been reasonable for speech at least since the BBC used them
for some time. Although they had disc recording too.
--
*We are born naked, wet, and hungry. Then things get worse.