Re: [ARSCLIST] Plangent Processes and speed correction

["Scott D. Smith" <sdsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve and Richard,

One of the reasons that Jamie has not put this program into a "plug-in"
form (besides recouping his investment) is that the equipment required
to capture some of the recording artifacts used for FFT analysis is
quite specialized. In the case of  mag film reproduction, it is
neccesary to capture enough of the bias artifacts on the recording so
that the system can lock onto the signal as a time base. This requires
both heads and electronics that extremely wideband (read expensive), and
a fair amount of treaking. While hum, rumble, or other artifacts might a
little easier to capture and isolate, I can understand why Jamie may not
want to release the process as a simple "plug & play" device, as the
number of variables involved in trying to isolate a given recording
artifact will vary greatly from medium-to-medium, not to mention the
variables involved with different types of equipment. This can present a
rather daunting challenge which may be outside the engineering realm of
many people involved with audio archiving and restoration, who
frequently are working with rather rudimentary setups.

Having said all this, it is still my hope that perhaps a limited version
of the program could be made available which would perhaps work on just
a limited numbers of mediums, where the signal artifacts could be
readily isolated and locked onto.

While many people (myself included) have worked on similar approaches,
the ability to apply some serious computing power to the equation I
think puts his approach at the head of the pack. (My meager efforts in
the area date back to the late 1980's, when I was able to isolate enough
hum from a recording to use as a source for locking the servo system of
a Studer recorder to. I never bothered to patent it, as I thought that
other patents related to pilotone recording (IE Nagra and Ryder systems)
would probably take precedence). Although I had written a draft paper on
it for AES, I never had a chance to finish it.

Scott D. Smith

Chicago Audio Works, Inc.


Steven Smolian wrote:

> The idea of tracking hum was among a group of improvements awaiting
> inplementatiuon I presented at a 1990 (I think) Audio Engineering Society
> plenary session so you can be sure I believe in it as a concept..  I
> have a
> copy of the tape.
>
> We are preserving the audio cultural heritage imperfectly, restoring
> audio
> that could, with assistance from this program, be much improved.
> Instead,
> if the media lasts long enough, it will have to be done again when
> this or a
> similar program are widely and inexpensively available.
>
> I'm sure the developers have made a substantial invenstement in their
> programs.
>
> This, it seems to me, is a perfect product to be marketed cheaply,
> subsidized by an appropriate entity by someone at the Bill Gates level.
>
> I sugest creating a presentation with this goal would be an appropriate
> function of ARSC in conjunction with the Plangent folks.
>
> I know they are working with 78s right now but the lack of an example
> makes
> me uneasy- do discs introduce another layer of technical problems when
> heard
> under more detailed listening conditions than the conference presentation
> allowed?  I shouldn't think so but until one is posted, let's not call
> Mr.
> Gates just yet.
>
> Steve Smolian
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard L. Hess" <ArcLists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 9:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Plangent Processes and speed correction
>
>
> > Steve,
> >
> > Plangent Processes and Antares are two different animals. One looks
> > at non-program artifacts in the source, the other looks at program.
> >
> > Plangent has some impressive demonstrations - they can almost totally
> > remove dubber flutter. I think I heard things at the ARSC conference
> > that did not come off magnetic media, and Jamie talked about looking
> > for and locking onto a wide range of "timebase"-type signals in a
> > recording.
> >
> > Sure you want to own it, but Jamie needs to recoup a sizeable
> > investment. Look at the prices of the Algorithmix pro plugins and the
> > Cedar processes. I can tell you that the incremental difference on
> > noise reduction between the mid-range Algorithmix Sound Laundry and
> > the Pro is about the price ratio.
> >
> > My band organ client was blown away with the new noise reduction (he
> > likes to hear the music, not the machine).
> >
> > Anyway, if you lock onto the music, doesn't that destroy the music
> > unless there is a low-pass filter?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > At 08:16 PM 7/23/2005, you wrote:
> >
> > > I just looked at their web site.
> > >
> > > Their examples are all from tape or cylinders, i.e., constant
> > > speed.  I'm
> > > interested in 78s.
> > >
> > > This is a brureau only.  I spoke with them at the ARSC meeting.
> > > Cost is
> > > about $ 3,000 per hour.  Perhaps this has changed.
> > >
> > > Speaking for myself, though I expect it reflects the attitude of
> > > many on
> > > this particular list, I want to own the thing, preferbly as a plug-in.
> > >
> > > This may not be possible as yet.  The process may not be streamlined
> > > enough
> > > to simplify it sufficently to be marketed.
> > >
> > > The Antares Auto-Tune plug-in is $ 320 and up, PC and Mac.  It seem to
> > > work
> > > with lead instruents and sung vocals. I've not tried it.
> > >
> > > Steve Smolian
> >
> > Richard L. Hess                           email: richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Vignettes
> > Media                           web:   http://www.richardhess.com/tape/
> > Aurora, Ontario, Canada             (905) 713 6733     1-877-TAPE-FIX
> > Detailed contact information:
> > http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.4/57 - Release Date: 7/22/2005