Date:Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:51:09 -1000
Reply-To:Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender:Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
From:Malcolm Rockwell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:Re: De-clicking
Comments:To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:<001801c7d0b6$f5218b30$6b01a8c0@TOMOFFICE>
Content-Type:text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I've had success in lifting a few milliseconds from somewhere else in
the recording - usually from another chorus, or verse or bar in the
piece - and inserting it where the zit was excised. This is only a
sometimes solution, though, although it's invisible when it succeeds.
Works for both analog and digital splicing, but best done digitally,
because with analog you'd be working from a copy. Realistically it
should be at 15 or 30 ips, too, to have enough tape to splice!
Mal
*******
Tom Fine wrote:
> Hi Doug:
>
> <snip> When the needle jumps the groove like with a gouge or a big
> vinyl zit, all bets are off because there is no underlying music to
> mimick. I try to avoid records in that bad shape but sometimes you get
> 'em. After years of doing this, I've come to the conclusion that the
> most natural-sounding solution is just reduce the pop waveform to the
> level of the accompanying music. <snip>
> -- Tom Fine
>
*******
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Pomeroy"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 8:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] De-clicking
>
>
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> I assume the reference to "Jack" is a reference to Jack Towers.
>> He will tell you he got the oxide scraping technique from discussions
>> with the late John RT Davies. I have worked with some of John's tapes,
>> and I can report his scraping was VERY carefully done. I have also
>> worked
>> with some of Jack's tapes, and I have to say Jack usually took off
>> too much
>> oxide, producing an obvious dropout; I had to fix lots of these, using
>> crossfades, or by careful deletion of part of the audible silence.
>>
>> doug pomeroy
>>
>>> From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Reply-To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion
>>> List <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] De-clicking
>>> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:52:44 -0400
>>>
>>> Hi Parker:
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, I misunderstood what you were describing. Now I
>>> understand. That would absolutely work, but what an art form! Wow, I
>>> wonder what Jack experimented on to learn the art.
>>>
>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Parker Dinkins"
>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 8:14 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] De-clicking
>>>
>>>
>>>> on 7/26/07 8:06 PM US/Central, Tom Fine at [log in to unmask]
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But if you do Jack's method, you're left with the same problem as
>>>>> Terry -- a
>>>>> microsecond of blank space, which is just as noticeable and
>>>>> annoying as the
>>>>> click.
>>>>
>>>> By scraping off only the precise moment of the click, you're in effect
>>>> creating a high speed fadeout and fade-in. It's audible, but less
>>>> annoying
>>>> than the click itself.
>>>>
>>>> There's an overview of analog and digital de-clicking at
>>>> http://www.cedaraudio.com/intro/declick_intro.html - but without a
>>>> description of manually scraping off the oxide.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Parker Dinkins
>>>> MasterDigital Corporation
>>>> Audio Restoration + CD Mastering
>>>> http://masterdigital.com
>>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> http://liveearth.msn.com
>>
>
