Don't Touch That Groove!

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bleeding-edge physics researchers derail train of thought to old recordings

Full Article at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news [...] 917849.stm

excerpt:
=================================

The two scientists programmed a precision optical metrology system normally
used to inspect silicon detectors, to map and photograph the undulating
grooves etched on these old recordings.

Their first experiments involved extracting high quality sound from old
shellac discs from the 1950s.

The result was a digital reproduction with all the scratches, bumps, dust
and wiggles ironed out. Those images were then transferred to a computer and
turned into a sound file to produce a clean version of the original.

Non-invasive

The beauty of this technique is that nothing ever has to touch the actual
recording, thereby avoiding any further damage to it

"We stumbled on the idea and kind of made a connection," explains Haber.

"To us, it's a wonderful way forward where basic research in the physical
sciences can be made to work for another field of research or culture, which
you might naively think was unrelated to particle physics.

"Of course these are all the human endeavours and it's wonderful they can
benefit each other. "

Russian-born Fadeyev agrees: "It's great that our very technical field can
give benefits to other humanitarian activities."


--
John I-22
(that's 'I' for Initial...)
Recognising what's NOT worth your time, THAT'S the key.
--

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

JoVee <nozirev@dlywsinhoj.net> wrote in message news:<BD2691BF.416C%nozirev@dlywsinhoj.net>...
> Bleeding-edge physics researchers derail train of thought to old recordings
>
> Full Article at
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news [...] 917849.stm
>
> excerpt:
> =================================
>
> The two scientists programmed a precision optical metrology system normally
> used to inspect silicon detectors, to map and photograph the undulating
> grooves etched on these old recordings.
>
I heard a story similar to this on NPR. They also played some of the
recordings that were extracted. Sounded great. Very good idea IMHO.

DaveT

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"JoVee" <nozirev@dlywsinhoj.net> wrote in message
news:BD2691BF.416C%nozirev@dlywsinhoj.net
> Bleeding-edge physics researchers derail train of thought to old
> recordings
>
> Full Article at
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news [...] 917849.stm
>
> excerpt:
> =================================
>
> The two scientists programmed a precision optical metrology system
> normally used to inspect silicon detectors, to map and photograph the
> undulating grooves etched on these old recordings.
>
> Their first experiments involved extracting high quality sound from
> old shellac discs from the 1950s.
>
> The result was a digital reproduction with all the scratches, bumps,
> dust and wiggles ironed out. Those images were then transferred to a
> computer and turned into a sound file to produce a clean version of
> the original.
>
> Non-invasive
>
> The beauty of this technique is that nothing ever has to touch the
> actual recording, thereby avoiding any further damage to it

Other advantages include being able to handle records that are cracked, and
being able to *play* the record with a *stylus* that has a *shape* that is
more-or-less arbitrary and even varying with time. Virtual 'bots could be
dispatched to clean the virtual record, first.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Phil Brown" <philcycles@aol.communged> wrote in message
news:20040723192901.28913.00000270@mb-m26.aol.com
>> I heard a story similar to this on NPR. They also played some of the
>> recordings that were extracted. Sounded great. Very good idea IMHO.
>
> But how do we know that what came out of the computer after the
> mapping process is what the record really sounds like?

This begs the question how one knows what a record really sounds like, given
the tortorous and imprecise playback process.

> I would frankly prefer some physical process-like a stylus or laser-over
a
> computer program.

This does raise the issue of the fact that the unloaded position of the
walls of the groove aren't what we're supposed to play back. We're supposed
to load the groove walls when we play them back.

>Computers can only deal with that which has been
> forseen and a physical process leaves that result open .

You think that a playback stylus, indeed the whole playback chain operates
in accordance with some other rules?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I Care <icare@whocares.com> wrote:
>Here is a no contact vinyl playback system that's been around for
>awhile.
>
>http://www.elpj.com/about/
>
>or
>
>http://www.laserturntable.com/
>
>Doesn't appear that it removes noise or restores/improves quality
>however.

No, it adds noise, because it will pick up junk in the groove that a
stylus will brush away. Noise floor with the Finial is very high. But
the Finial allows you to track a section of a damaged groove very
tightly.

Postprocessing can reduce noise, but nothing can reduce mistracking
distortion from the transcription process. The whole goal in the
transcription process today is to reduce distortion and then worry
about the noise after the fact.

Although admittedly the Finial can be a pain in the neck. It's about
the only solution for really grotty styrene pressings, though.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1090630499k@trad

> In article <T5SdnfFLPrAfPJzc4p2dnA@comcast.com> arnyk@hotpop.com
> writes:

>>> But how do we know that what came out of the computer after the
>>> mapping process is what the record really sounds like?

>> This begs the question how one knows what a record really sounds
>> like, given the tortorous and imprecise playback process.

> Or any recording for that matter. When you play a CD you bought, do
> you have any idea what things sounded like in the studio?

No.

>Or even in the control room where it was mixed?

No.

Or in the mastering suite?

No.

Try explaining this to an audiophile who thinks his home system represents
"The Absolute Sound".

;-)

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Jul 24, 2004, Woodworm <maxmax@macmail.com> commented:

> More seriously, about 15 years ago a friend of mine developped a way
> to eliminate background noise from optical tracks for film.
>--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<

The only company I know of who has such a device is Chace Productions of
Burbank. The concept was first invented for the 1975 Ken Russell film TOMMY,
which used an early multi-channel surround technique for some exhibitions.
After several years (and many thousands of dollars), Rick Chace got the idea
to actually work, and used it to extract high-quality sound from negative
optical soundtracks. It saved the cost of having to create a print, and also
lowers the noise floor dramatically.

I believe they called the CCD pickup the "COSP" (Chace Optical Sound
Processor). They considered selling it for awhile, but finally decided to
keep it proprietary.





> It didn't correct high-end or cross-modulation.
> Very interesting, but deemed to lack "authenticity"
> by those who listened to it.
>--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<

It sounds find to me, and I heard it on more than 50 releases. As far as I
know, Chace Productions is still using the CCD optical sound pickup even to
this day. I've never heard optical soundtracks, especially old ones, sound
better than when they're processed by the Chace guys.

--MFW
[remove the extra M above for email]