Fun impulse poll

[Drew]

Hey all;
I was working on a really scratchy record recently and just out of curiousity, tallied the number of clicks I had removed during the process.

I thought it might be interesting to see how many clicks people have removed to bring a record to "full brilliance".

My record (pun intended) is around 400,000 for 1 side.

Anyone else... Beuller, anyone???

Drew

[Dan McDonald]

maybe clicks per minute (CPM) would be a better indicator. I've done some 2-minute cylinders that probably hit higher on a per-minute basis.

Then, we might need to control for rpm also.

Dan

[Craig Maier]

I do not remember the number for an LP, but having done so many 78's, I recall that the number was typically around 15,000 to 40,000 per side (which is one song).

400,000 impulses sounds like a lot. So, I am guessing that Drew's statistic was probably derived from a side of an LP and not a 78. But, that still would be one heck of a noisey LP! Did someone use sandpaper on that record?

[Craig Maier]

Dan,

Speaking of cylinders, I am curious how you transfer them. Did you modify an Edison machine with a Stanton 500 phono cartridge? If so, was it difficult to do? Can you describe the process? I have around 70 cylinders (most Blue Amberols and a few 2 minute cylinders too). I have transferred them acoustically which is not too satisfying (placing a high quality Beyer dynamic mic right down into the horn). We own two cylinder machines; one is a two speed machine with an external horn while the other is a 4 mintue machine with an internal horn (I think called an Amberola).

[Drew]

Yes, it is for LP's, not 78's. And, yes, it was a pretty bad record, but I ran impulse filters numerous times and I roughly added up the total clicks removed each time and it came up to about 380,000 or so. I think the first run was about 178,000 clicks.

[Craig Maier]

Drew - how did the final product sound?

[Dan McDonald]

Hey Craig -

The first ones I did were with a very large tone arm I made (about 4 feet long), which worked well, but was very difficult to balance correctly, so I only used it for very common recordings. Then I got an ACT. At the time, it was just available in mono, but I re-wired it for stereo.

I have a 2-speed player and a 1-speed (2-minute) player, so I use the 2-speed machine for the transfers. The ACT just fits right in the mounting bracket so that's very easy. The problem that I run into is that it picks up a lot of noise from the vibrations of the machine itself. The long tonearm didn't do that because it was more isolated. I see he uses a long tonearm at tinfoil.com also; I can see the advantage for the long tonearm.

I've isolated my transfer machine with a lot of foam and other padding to keep the vibrations minimized. My 2-speed machine may be worse than some because it was originally a 2-minute that someone had converted (long, long ago) using the converter that Edison sold for several years. It works just fine, but there's a lot of vibration.

I think the ideal (which I've thought of but haven't done) would be to get an old dual-speed player on ebay and convert it to an electrical motor, then use the ACT on it. Or just by an archaeophone.

Dan

[Craig Maier]

Dan,

Thanks, but one other thing - - - ACT is an acronym for what? I take it that it is some sort of pickup system - - - one that you can buy, I guess.

BTW - if you electrify your machine, you would have to use a proper high quality turntable motor if you do not want to spray the magnetic cartridge with line frequency H fields which would produce a lot of Hum.

Also, if you are picking up a lot of player rumble with the ACT, you should be able to filter that out with a first order High Pass Filter using Diamond Cut. Essentially, the long arm is just that - - - a mechanical first order high pass filter.

[Dan McDonald]

Hey Craig -

ACT stands for Advanced Cylinder Technology I think. It is something you buy. It used to be sold through a couple of places. www.nipperhead.com sells them these days. I think they're all stereo now. It fits right into the eye-thing (technical term) that holds the reproducer. then, instead of a horn, you have a line out that goes into your stereo or whatever. Pretty nifty, actually.


Yes - I filter out the noise with the high pass filter, but I always thought it would be nice to not have it to begin with. I think outfitting an electric motor would have to be something that I do after I retire. My electrical training is not what it should be, and I can see a project like that stretching into a couple of months.

Dan

[DJBohn]

Drew - how did the final product sound?

Craig - I've had a few real bad LP's like that as well. What comes to mind are some Monkees LP's my aunt had. They were new when she was in 5th grade and she played them to death. Those records were bad! I almost didn't want to put my needle on them. But after using several impulse filters (I think 4 or 5), both forward and backwards, and a little bit of hand done Interpolate work, I was more impressed with the end result that I thought I would be. She thought they sounded almost new again! I think there was just a little bit of smearing on some of the complex passages, but otherwise they came out sounding OK. 500,000+ ticks & pops per side!

[Dan McDonald]

Craig - I've had a few real bad LP's like that as well. What comes to mind are some Monkees LP's my aunt had. ....a little bit of smearing on some of the complex passages,

complex passages? on Monkees LPs?

[DJBohn]

Dan - Poor choice of words on my part! I admit, their music was far from complex. But when they were all singing & instruments were going at the same time, it was just not as clear & defined as I would have liked it to have been - more during the louder passages, probably from groove damage done by her old portable record grinder.

[Craig Maier]

Quoting Dan:

" . . . I filter out the noise with the high pass filter, but I always thought it would be nice to not have it to begin with."

-----------------------------------------

I think that it does not matter whether you use a mechanical filter or an electronic filter to get rid of the noises. It all works out the same except the electronic method provides more flexability (ie - you can adjust it easily). Plus, the ACT system that you describe would more properly remain tangential to the groove thus introducing less distortion.

[Craig Maier]

I would love to hear before and after snippets of an LP that has/had 400,000 to 500,000 impulses on it! Does - anyone have a before and after example for me? (Maybe just 10 seconds each way)

[DJBohn]

Craig, my aunt left me with her Monkees LP's after I transfered them to CD, and I'm sure she would loan me the CD, but I have a different cartridge on a different table now. I do still have the original cartridge on a different head shell that I did the restoration with and it wouldn't be any problem to change, but it is also a little worn. If I remember correctly, those records were among my first restorations, which were all done with the older DC-32. I could still send you some snippets of the same passage if you wish. (don't worry, 16/44.1 not 24/96 like my last sample to you!) Considering the wear and damage to those LP's, I was satisfied with the end result.