J. P. Gilliver <[email protected]> wrote:
I got to wondering, could autotune be used to rescue some of these old
clips from the worst excesses of wow?
The general rule is to tackle each type of distortion at source; getting
a disc so the grooves are central, regardless of wherethe centre hole
might be, is just part of the basic set-up when you are doing
transcription work. I have fitted my pick-up with an electronic
micrometer for that purpose, a groove microscope couldequally well be
used.
However, a lot of the old clips of singers who _could_ hold a note,
aren't - if they're from tapes, sometimes records, or particularly film
- because of that phenomenon possibly not familiar to the latest
generation of sound engineers: wow. (Not sure why film seems
particularly prone to it: possibly heavy reels driven entirely by film tension [but surely that applies to tape too]?)
I got to wondering, could autotune be used to rescue some of these old
clips from the worst excesses of wow?
I watch a lot of old music clips on YouTube; one of the comments I see a
lot (I'm sure _some_ of it is just the "it was better in the old days" >mentality) is something like "they could really _sing_ in those days - no >this, no that, no autotune, just singers who could sing on pitch
without .."
I've never been quite sure what autotune is, but from the nature of such comments, and the name itself, I presume it's some device (software, I presume) that corrects the pitch of singers who _can't_ stay on pitch,
using more or less the same principle as YouTube or VLC when playing fast
or slow, presumably hooked to something that _is_ the correct pitch such
as a feed from one of the accompanying instruments.
However, a lot of the old clips of singers who _could_ hold a note,
aren't - if they're from tapes, sometimes records, or particularly film - because of that phenomenon possibly not familiar to the latest generation
of sound engineers: wow. (Not sure why film seems particularly prone to
it: possibly heavy reels driven entirely by film tension [but surely that applies to tape too]?)
I got to wondering, could autotune be used to rescue some of these old
clips from the worst excesses of wow?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
If you carry on hating, you're the one who's damaged.
- Sir Harold Atcherley, sent to the Burma/Siam railway in April 1943
J. P. Gilliver <[email protected]> wrote:[]
generation of sound engineers: wow. (Not sure why film seems
particularly prone to it: possibly heavy reels driven entirely by film
tension [but surely that applies to tape too]?)
Sometimes the wow comes from the original sound camera, but that is very >rare. One particularly bad example is the record of "Warsaw Concertto"
from the sound track of "Dangerous Moonlight", the pitch wavers very >noticeably.
More often it is because the transcription engineer isn't doing the job >properly.
I got to wondering, could autotune be used to rescue some of these old
clips from the worst excesses of wow?
The general rule is to tackle each type of distortion at source; getting
a disc so the grooves are central, regardless of wherethe centre hole
might be, is just part of the basic set-up when you are doing
transcription work. I have fitted my pick-up with an electronic
micrometer for that purpose, a groove microscope couldequally well be
used.
The problem with correcting wow though is that its often too slow and
variable. You are in effect turning the effect on its head to even out the >irregularities. It has been done in reclaiming old recordings, but once >again, it can lead to some artificialness unless you can create the actual >waveforms exactly.
It would be easier in many instances to do it via sample rate.
To me the biggest issue with modern recordings is close microphone
placement and excessive compression on it. It simply does not sound real to >me.
Some of the recordings I've heard done recently in Nashville, are very very
compressed against those done say 10 years ago, which sounded more natural.
Again Michael Bubbles recordings, wherever they are done are what he calls >intimate, and I call downright un-natural.
Nashville recordings have completely ruined the Shires and many others for
me.
Brian
Just wondering. If there is enough mains hum, could you read that to >stabilise everything by varying sample rates? If so, how low a level
could you pick up on? Even stray air conditioning noise might be
constant enough.
J. P. Gilliver <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
However, a lot of the old clips of singers who _could_ hold a note,
aren't - if they're from tapes, sometimes records, or particularly film
- because of that phenomenon possibly not familiar to the latest
generation of sound engineers: wow. (Not sure why film seems
particularly prone to it: possibly heavy reels driven entirely by film
tension [but surely that applies to tape too]?)
Sometimes the wow comes from the original sound camera, but that is very rare. One particularly bad example is the record of "Warsaw Concertto"
from the sound track of "Dangerous Moonlight", the pitch wavers very noticeably.
More often it is because the transcription engineer isn't doing the job properly.
I got to wondering, could autotune be used to rescue some of these old
clips from the worst excesses of wow?
The general rule is to tackle each type of distortion at source; getting
a disc so the grooves are central, regardless of wherethe centre hole
might be, is just part of the basic set-up when you are doing
transcription work. I have fitted my pick-up with an electronic
micrometer for that purpose, a groove microscope couldequally well be
used.
--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
On 12/05/2023 10:36, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
J. P. Gilliver <[email protected]> wrote:
Just wondering. If there is enough mains hum, could you read that to stabilise everything by varying sample rates? If so, how low a level could you pick up on? Even stray air conditioning noise might be constantI got to wondering, could autotune be used to rescue some of these old
clips from the worst excesses of wow?
The general rule is to tackle each type of distortion at source; getting
a disc so the grooves are central, regardless of wherethe centre hole
might be, is just part of the basic set-up when you are doing
transcription work. I have fitted my pick-up with an electronic
micrometer for that purpose, a groove microscope couldequally well be
used.
enough.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
In message <u3l0g9$1gp4p$[email protected]> at Fri, 12 May 2023 10:22:13,
Brian Gaff <[email protected]> writes
[]
The problem with correcting wow though is that its often too slow and >>variable. You are in effect turning the effect on its head to even out the >>irregularities. It has been done in reclaiming old recordings, but once >>again, it can lead to some artificialness unless you can create the actual >>waveforms exactly.
I've often thought about that, and that the correction "waveform" would actually be quite a complex mathematical entity, when it's from a mis-centered disc record, because for a given fixed offset, the amount of
wow increases as you approach the centre. Made more complicated for non-fixed-pitch records (most 45s and 33s).
It would be easier in many instances to do it via sample rate.
Agreed.
[]
To me the biggest issue with modern recordings is close microphone >>placement and excessive compression on it. It simply does not sound real
to
me.
Certainly, the degree of compression has increased over the last few
decades - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war suggests it really
took off after CDs became mainstream and may have reduced slightly since about 2005, though says it was first discussed in the 1940s. Compression
is a good topic for discussion on its own. Most people _say_ they don't
like it, but it may still influence their choice of, say, radio station.
(My recent experience with YouTube material has included some that is at
far too _low_ an absolute level - in one or two cases I've had to apply my
�4 preset _twice_ to exceed half full scale [i. e. they're less than a sixteenth full scale]. Seems to be mainly old video material: I can only assume that some contributors are using video digitising equipment that doesn't allow audio level adjustment after digitisation [or they don't
know how to do it]. That's yet another different matter to dynamic range,
of course.)
Some of the recordings I've heard done recently in Nashville, are very
very
compressed against those done say 10 years ago, which sounded more
natural.
You'd agree with the writer of the Wikipedia article I've cited above, who
is fairly clearly of that opinion.
Again Michael Bubbles recordings, wherever they are done are what he calls >>intimate, and I call downright un-natural.
(The guy's stage name has only two Bs, by the way - the one in the middle isn't a double. [I think I've seen the e with an acute accent on it, too, though I know that can't reliably pass through news.])
Nashville recordings have completely ruined the Shires and many othersNot Borsetshire, I hope ...
for
me.
Brian
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Less rules means fewer grammar? - Marjorie in UMRA, 2014-1-28 13:14
In message <[email protected]> at Fri, 12 May 2023
11:01:57, John Williamson <[email protected]> writes
[]
Just wondering. If there is enough mains hum, could you read that to >>stabilise everything by varying sample rates? If so, how low a level could >>you pick up on? Even stray air conditioning noise might be constantAnother one might be timebase whistle; of YouTube material that actually
enough.
goes that high (which is much of it, even if the source material didn't go anywhere near that high), I've seen it (as an about -80dB [purple in GoldWave] very visible line on the spectrogram - I can't hear that high)
on I'd say 60-80% of recordings. Though it'd only of course be of use if
it was on the original recording, whereas I suspect in most cases I see,
it's been introduced at some subsequent stage, where it obviously wouldn't
be any use, in fact using it would just make things worse.
It's interesting how we have developed notches in our hearing to our local mains frequency and its harmonics; I remember borrowing some Bob Newhart records from my local library in, I think, the 1980s, and being very aware
of the mains buzz on those - which I assume was because they were 60 not
50 hertz (or harmonics thereof).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur". ("Anything is more impressive
if
you say it in Latin")
In message <1qam54f.1j66ejt1hbbzggN%[email protected]d> at
Fri, 12 May 2023 10:36:05, Liz Tuddenham
<[email protected]d> writes
J. P. Gilliver <[email protected]> wrote:[]
generation of sound engineers: wow. (Not sure why film seems
particularly prone to it: possibly heavy reels driven entirely by film
tension [but surely that applies to tape too]?)
Sometimes the wow comes from the original sound camera, but that is very >>rare. One particularly bad example is the record of "Warsaw Concertto" >>from the sound track of "Dangerous Moonlight", the pitch wavers very >>noticeably.
You mean even if the film is played at a dead constant speed (say, feeding from a loose box, or I suppose a telecine with proper speed tracking),
there is wow on it, from the original sound camera? Interesting. I must
admit I've only ever had recordings of the Warsaw played by others - I
think I've only seen the actual film once (on TV).
More often it is because the transcription engineer isn't doing the job >>properly.
I got to wondering, could autotune be used to rescue some of these old
clips from the worst excesses of wow?
The general rule is to tackle each type of distortion at source; getting
Oh, I couldn't agree more: not introducing an error is better than trying
to correct it afterwards, especially with something as mathematically
complex as wow from a mis-centred record. But sometimes we're stuck with
only the transcription (and probably in mp3 format too).
a disc so the grooves are central, regardless of wherethe centre holeWhat do you look at? The run-out final groove would I guess be the best reference, though only on records where it is centered, which on earlier records it often deliberately isn't (I presume to trigger the auto-stop mechanism on players).
might be, is just part of the basic set-up when you are doing >>transcription work. I have fitted my pick-up with an electronic
micrometer for that purpose, a groove microscope couldequally well be
used.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur". ("Anything is more impressive
if
you say it in Latin")
Many recordings of Classical Music on Decca on a decent sound system give the rumble of tube trains under the recording venue. Was that the Kingsway Halls?
On 12/05/2023 10:36, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
J. P. Gilliver <[email protected]> wrote:
I got to wondering, could autotune be used to rescue some of these old
clips from the worst excesses of wow?
The general rule is to tackle each type of distortion at source; getting
a disc so the grooves are central, regardless of wherethe centre hole
might be, is just part of the basic set-up when you are doing transcription work. I have fitted my pick-up with an electronic
micrometer for that purpose, a groove microscope couldequally well be
used.
Just wondering. If there is enough mains hum, could you read that to stabilise everything by varying sample rates? If so, how low a level
could you pick up on? Even stray air conditioning noise might be
constant enough.
Just wondering. If there is enough mains hum, could you read that to
stabilise everything by varying sample rates? If so, how low a level
could you pick up on? Even stray air conditioning noise might be
constant enough.
Most of the early disc-recording amplifiers were powered by batteries
and the microphone circuits were low impedance and balanced, so there wouldn't have been any electrical hum. Mains-operated equipment, other
than lamps, was a rarity, so there also wouldn't have been much acoustic
hum.
On 12/05/2023 22:05, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Just wondering. If there is enough mains hum, could you read that to
stabilise everything by varying sample rates? If so, how low a level
could you pick up on? Even stray air conditioning noise might be
constant enough.
Most of the early disc-recording amplifiers were powered by batteries
and the microphone circuits were low impedance and balanced, so there wouldn't have been any electrical hum. Mains-operated equipment, other than lamps, was a rarity, so there also wouldn't have been much acoustic hum.
Fair enough, I was thinking more of tape recordings than disc.
Just wondering. If there is enough mains hum, could you read that to stabilise everything by varying sample rates? If so, how low a level
could you pick up on? Even stray air conditioning noise might be
constant enough.
John Williamson <[email protected]> wrote:
Just wondering. If there is enough mains hum, could you read that to
stabilise everything by varying sample rates? If so, how low a level
could you pick up on? Even stray air conditioning noise might be
constant enough.
I'm pretty sure that's been done. You can also do it forensically to >timestamp recordings:
https://robertheaton.com/enf/
Theo
In message <M3D*[email protected]> at Mon, 15 May 2023 12:47:26, Theo <[email protected]> writes
John Williamson <[email protected]> wrote:
Just wondering. If there is enough mains hum, could you read that to
stabilise everything by varying sample rates? If so, how low a level
could you pick up on? Even stray air conditioning noise might be
constant enough.
I'm pretty sure that's been done. You can also do it forensically to
timestamp recordings:
https://robertheaton.com/enf/
Theo
Interesting. Bit like dendrochronology (tree-ring dating). Does suggest someone's recording the fluctuations in the grid though - scary! (Not
the recording as such, but the amount of detail needed ...)
On 12/05/2023 10:36, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
J. P. Gilliver <[email protected]> wrote:
Just wondering. If there is enough mains hum, could you read that to stabilise everything by varying sample rates? If so, how low a levelI got to wondering, could autotune be used to rescue some of these old
clips from the worst excesses of wow?
The general rule is to tackle each type of distortion at source; getting
a disc so the grooves are central, regardless of wherethe centre hole
might be, is just part of the basic set-up when you are doing
transcription work. I have fitted my pick-up with an electronic
micrometer for that purpose, a groove microscope couldequally well be
used.
could you pick up on? Even stray air conditioning noise might be
constant enough.
On 12/05/2023 11:01, John Williamson wrote:[]
Just wondering. If there is enough mains hum, could you read that to >>stabilise everything by varying sample rates? If so, how low a level
could you pick up on? Even stray air conditioning noise might be
constant enough.
Funny you should say that. I recorded a piece of music from the TV many
years ago by the time-honoured technique of placing a microphone next
to the TV's speaker. I recorded it on my battery-powered cassette
recorder and the batteries may have been dying because there is
horrendous wow: the pitch of the playback rises every time there is a
loud part of the music - especially noticeable since some of the
instruments have very sharp attack. Maybe the extra current drawn by
the amplifier on loud sounds caused the motor voltage to sag...
When I copied the tape to my PC (via its soundcard) much more recently,
I noticed something that I couldn't hear: the 15625 Hz line frequency.
This set me thinking: perhaps some form of servo system could be
devised (either in hardware, controlling the tape recorder's motor, or
in software, post-processing the digital copy of the tape, so as to
keep the tone at exactly 15625 Hz?
But the sound would not have been coming from the cassette recorder's speaker, would it - or were you monitoring, and using a very long mike
lead to avoid feedback? Most portable cassette machines mute the speaker
on record, at least when recording from a microphone. So unless the TV
was also running on battery ...
Another dodge for records that crackle a lot due to the muck that comes
in due to static, is to use one of those knowin record cleaning baths with water and fairy liquid, Play the tracks you want while wet and the muck is
in suspension.
Funny you should say that. I recorded a piece of music from the TV many >>years ago by the time-honoured technique of placing a microphone next to >>the TV's speaker. I recorded it on my battery-powered cassette recorder
and the batteries may have been dying because there is horrendous wow: the >>pitch of the playback rises every time there is a loud part of the music - >>especially noticeable since some of the instruments have very sharp
attack. Maybe the extra current drawn by the amplifier on loud sounds >>caused the motor voltage to sag...
But the sound would not have been coming from the cassette recorder's speaker, would it - or were you monitoring, and using a very long mike
lead to avoid feedback? Most portable cassette machines mute the speaker
on record, at least when recording from a microphone. So unless the TV was also running on battery ...
When I copied the tape to my PC (via its soundcard) much more recently, I >>noticed something that I couldn't hear: the 15625 Hz line frequency. This >>set me thinking: perhaps some form of servo system could be devised
(either in hardware, controlling the tape recorder's motor, or in
software, post-processing the digital copy of the tape, so as to keep the >>tone at exactly 15625 Hz?
Although Liz will say correcting at source is better, I suspect getting a servo loop to work that fast and reliably on the tape motor would be quite
a difficult task if not impossible, so software post-processing probably a better approach (the servo wouldn't be correcting _at source_ anyway - the "damage" is done).
Are you sure the 15625 was from the original recording session? (Can you
see it moving up and down with the wow?) I've noticed a strong line
between 15 and 16 kHz on a vast number of tracks from YouTube, including
many where no video should have been anywhere near the source (e. g. digitised old 78s!); I can only assume that they picked up something from, say, a computer monitor. (Though those aren't at that low a frequency
these days, are they? Maybe there is - or was until recently - a
background 15625 [or US value, which is quite close] miasma in all
built-up areas!)
Was this just an intellectual thought, or is it a recording you'd really
like to retrieve: in other words, what was/is the music? We can probably
find you a recording; virtually everything is on YouTube these days (-:!
On 19/05/2023 10:33, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
But the sound would not have been coming from the cassette recorder's
speaker, would it - or were you monitoring, and using a very long mike
lead to avoid feedback? Most portable cassette machines mute the speaker
on record, at least when recording from a microphone. So unless the TV
was also running on battery ...
It is marginal, but the record amplifier uses more current when there is
more signal being fed to the head. This may affect the speed slightly depending on just how flat the batteries are. This would be more evident
when the recorder uses a permanent magnet erase head, DC bias and a mechanical governor, as many cheap recorders used to.
It is marginal, but the record amplifier uses more current when there
is more signal being fed to the head. This may affect the speed
slightly depending on just how flat the batteries are. This would be
more evident when the recorder uses a permanent magnet erase head, DC
bias and a mechanical governor, as many cheap recorders used to.
And this *was* a cheap recorder - might have been my first one as a
child which was
Phillips EL3302
"Brian Gaff" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:u3lepd$1id48$[email protected]...
Another dodge for records that crackle a lot due to the muck that comes
in due to static, is to use one of those knowin record cleaning baths with water and fairy liquid, Play the tracks you want while wet and the muck is in suspension.
Been there, done that. Need to clean the crap off the needle after copying each track.
I remember adverts for record-cleaning devices which rotated the disc inside a small hub which contained a soap solution and which partially enclosed a sector of the disc which was rotated to clean the whole disc.
When I was copying some of my dad's old LPs, I found that some of them were so bad that I needed to drip water onto each track in turn so there was a "lake" covering the grooves, and playing with the needle immersed in that water.
On 19/05/2023 15:43, NY wrote:
It is marginal, but the record amplifier uses more current when there
is more signal being fed to the head. This may affect the speed
slightly depending on just how flat the batteries are. This would be
more evident when the recorder uses a permanent magnet erase head, DC
bias and a mechanical governor, as many cheap recorders used to.
And this *was* a cheap recorder - might have been my first one as a
child which was
Phillips EL3302
I have one of the model before that here, the EL3301. Two part
microphone (The microphone and remote control switch coould be
separated),and no interlock to prevent accidentally over recording
cassette albums. It all still works, with the original motor, which had
a mechanical governor.
At the time, they were actually not cheap. They were originally sold as
a premium tool to allow executives to dictate stuff while out and about.
The EL3301 was one of, if not *the* first portable cassette recorder.
When I copied the tape to my PC (via its soundcard) much more recently,
I noticed something that I couldn't hear: the 15625 Hz line frequency.
This set me thinking: perhaps some form of servo system could be devised (either in hardware, controlling the tape recorder's motor, or in
software, post-processing the digital copy of the tape, so as to keep
the tone at exactly 15625 Hz?
On 19/05/2023 15:43, NY wrote:
And this *was* a cheap recorder - might have been my first one as a
child which was
Phillips EL3302
I have one of the model before that here, the EL3301. Two part
microphone (The microphone and remote control switch could be
separated),and no interlock to prevent accidentally over recording
cassette albums. It all still works, with the original motor, which had
a mechanical governor.
At the time, they were actually not cheap. They were originally sold as
a premium tool to allow executives to dictate stuff while out and about.
The EL3301 was one of, if not *the* first portable cassette recorder.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 25:41:58 |
| Calls: | 12,106 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,183 |