Re: arsclist Thoughts on a "dream" manual declicker/deglitcher for 78 restoration (Windows-based software)

["Steven Smolian" <smolians@xxxxxxxxx>]

Does this mean that what you want is the declicking process of Pristine
Sounds, only faster?

Steven Smolian

=========================
Steven Smolian    301-694-5134
Smolian Sound Studios
---------------------------------------------------
CDs made from old recordings,
Five or one or lifetime hoardings,
Made at home or concert hall,
Text and pics explain it all.
at www.soundsaver.com
=========================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Noring" <jon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: arsclist Thoughts on a "dream" manual declicker/deglitcher for
78 restoration (Windows-based software)


> James wrote:
> >Jon Noring wrote:
>
> >> It is entirely possible that somebody has built the tool described
> >> here: a manual declicker using frequency-space for visual location
> >> of clicks/glitches, and a robust removal and reconstruction
> >> algorithm to rebuild the wave form at the point the glitch was
> >> removed.
>
> > I would agree with Graham that the CEDAR tools are not expensive if you
> > are restoring audio professionally. Consider how much your time costs
> > and then consider how much time is saved by using the right tool.
>
> Obviously if one has a full-time business to do audio restoration one
> should seriously consider something like CEDAR or NoNoise. I believe
> the NoNoise tools are now being (or will soon be) sold through ProTools
> (or whatever) for about $2000. Not bad, actually. I just need to buy
> a Mac. <laugh/>
>
>
> > However, for your purposes I would suggest that you look at Cool Edit
> > Pro. This has the spectral view which makes it easy to find clicks and
> > then a select, button click to bring up dialogue box and button click to
> > remove glitch process for each glitch.
>
> I have tried Cool Edit, and found it very wanting. The three step
> process to remove clicks took way too long, plus the algorithm it uses
> to "subdue" the click is pretty useless -- in many cases it actually
> created artifacts. Why it can't simply cut it out and then reconstruct
> it using the information on both sides of the cutout portion is beyond
> me -- in most cases it'd probably be a more accurate restoration.
>
> Anyway, with Pristine Sounds 2000, which is conceptually very close to
> what I've been talking about, I can manually remove glitches at a rate
> of one every 3-5 seconds. Some of the really difficult three minute
> recordings may have over 1000 glitches to remove, even after gently
> applying automated declicking/decrackling (I've found that if one
> stomps on these automated tools, they really distort the sound.)
>
>
> > 2 or 3 years ago I tried the demo versions of just about all the glitch
> > removal software that I could find (except the really expensive
> > hardware/software) and I felt, like you, that most of it was cumbersome
> > to use. For most basic noise reduction purposes I found that Cool Edit
> > Pro worked as well as anything for the occasional transfer that I have
> > to do.
>
> If you haven't, I'd suggest you try the Pristine Sounds 2000 demo.
> The demo can be downloaded from:
>
> http://www.alienconnections.com/downloads.htm
>
> (Look for Pristine Sounds 2000, build 00.07.26)
>
> Glitch removal with PS 2000 is done by first opening the wave you wish
> to edit. Then in the Function menu item select "Frequency Space Edit..."
> A gray sonogram window comes up. I found that for click removal I set
> the brush tool to "Declick brush", 99% strength and as thin and long
> (high) as the settings allow. Then place the cross-hairs cursor on top
> of a click (which is a thin vertical line, sometimes which only partly
> covers the frequency range -- note that not all thin vertical lines
> are noise! -- they can be sibilants of some sort -- a listening test
> will verify if the vertical line should be there or not.)
>
> Note that the demo will only save waves which are 30 seconds or shorter.
>
> Now, to comment on your mention of time. Considering that I've found
> the number one time sink for restoring old recordings is manual glitch
> removal, to clean up what the automatic declickers and decracklers do
> not remove (and you don't want to stomp down hard on these automated
> tools to do 100% removal), the tool I advocate would significantly
> reduce the time to do this, even for toolsets such as CEDAR and
> NoNoise which I understand do not use a one-step sonogram approach as
> PS 2000 does. It should also be more thorough and catch clicks that
> otherwise will escape. I've ran through PS 2000 the work of a couple
> professional restorers I know and immediately caught a few clicks they
> missed, and which when you listen to a couple times can hear the
> clicks, albeit very subtle. By visualizing using a sonogram, you can
> see everything clearly -- here the eye will see and locate clicks much
> better than the ear can (not to say the ear is not important!)
>
> Jon Noring
>
> -
> For subscription instructions, see the ARSC home page
> http://www.arsc-audio.org/arsclist.html
> Copyright of individual posting is owned by the author of the posting and
> permission to re-transmit or publish a post must be secured
> from the author of the post.
>

-
For subscription instructions, see the ARSC home page
http://www.arsc-audio.org/arsclist.html
Copyright of individual posting is owned by the author of the posting and
permission to re-transmit or publish a post must be secured
from the author of the post.