Hiss on old records

It's all about the equipment

Moderators: Mr Awesomer, JesseMiner, CafeSavoy

Message
Author
User avatar
Lawrence
Posts: 1213
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 2:08 pm
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

#16 Post by Lawrence » Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:56 pm

Haydn wrote:
Lawrence wrote:I would default to finding a better source in lieu of fixing a poor quality source.
But if every available CD release of a track has too much background noise, where do you find a better source?
First, alternative sources are available for a lot of vintage stuff. I have three or four CD versions of the exact same recording of Ellington's "Jack the Bear." Each of them were mastered differently and sound noticeably different. Incidentally, the "cleanest" version (Dreyfus) is not the most common and mass-marketed one; it is the least-common one.

Second, if you cannot find another source, then find another song. I have several awesome bootleg recordings that I would never play. It is not as if there is a shortage of good music that is recorded well. All the filters I have heard or used that siphon out hiss within the frequency range of the recording end up compromising sound quality and losing even more of the material. Unless you are a sound engineer with the expensive tools and time to manually remaster the recording, you just are not going to get the result you want with an automatic-setting software program.


So as to not be a complete Debbie Downer, there are two possibilities for how the hiss got there that might allow you to simply use a graphic equalizer to eliminate them.

First, most vintage music gurus advise that you play 78s using a cartridge (needle and its housing) with a more limited frequency response than the current industry standard. We have discussed the reason elsewhere: because the only thing in those higher and lower ranges of 78 vintage recordings is hiss and noise. Playing 78s on a modern turntable designed to play stereo hi-fi LPs often results in hiss and static noise in the upper and lower frequencies beyond the range of the vintage recording. (Ironically, playing a 78 on a "worse" record player will sound better.) There thus is a possibility that the CD recording came from a 78 that had a limited frequency range but was played back with a needle/cartridge that had a broader frequency range, resulting in the hiss.

Second, the source for the CD might not be a 78, directly, but an analog tape of a 78 that added "tape hiss." This hiss is normally in higher frequency ranges: "Dolby" sound mostly reduces the high frequency ranges to reduce the tape hiss. (It is more complicated than that, but that is the gist). Tape hiss is not just isolated in the upper frequencies and probably carry over into the frequencies of the vintage recording, but they are primarily in the upper range.

Thus, the hiss might be in a frequency range beyond that of the recorded music. You might be able to just isolate and eliminate the hiss by simply using a graphic equalizer. A treble adjustment would not be fine-tuned enough because it reduces all frequencies in the high range instead of isolated specific ranges; you need an equalizer with as many channels (knobs) as possible.

That said, any editing of the frequency within which the music is recorded will compromise the sound quality.
Lawrence Page
Austin Lindy Hop
http://www.AustinLindy.com

Haydn
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:36 am
Location: London

#17 Post by Haydn » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:02 pm

SoundInMotionDJ wrote:At this point, I generally prefer to record through my 31 band EQ. That has produced the best results of any method I've tried. The frequencies that need to be cut vary with each new recording.
--Stan Graves
Just curious Stan, when you say 'record' through your 31 band EQ, what do you mean. Are you talking about transferring music to computer? And which 31 band EQ product do you use?

Haydn
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:36 am
Location: London

#18 Post by Haydn » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:09 pm

Lawrence wrote:You might be able to just isolate and eliminate the hiss by simply using a graphic equalizer. A treble adjustment would not be fine-tuned enough because it reduces all frequencies in the high range instead of isolated specific ranges; you need an equalizer with as many channels (knobs) as possible.
Thanks Lawrence. Unfortunately, I am not particularly familiar with graphic equalizers (apart from the one on iTunes :wink: ). What kind of graphic equalizer are you talking about? Hardware? Software? I know you can get equalizers that you can use when playing music, but I would prefer to use one to edit the sound of a track on my computer, so that I can play it later with those settings. Can you give any examples of either software or hardware products that might be suitable? :)

SoundInMotionDJ
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 8:27 pm

#19 Post by SoundInMotionDJ » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:57 pm

Haydn wrote:
SoundInMotionDJ wrote:At this point, I generally prefer to record through my 31 band EQ. That has produced the best results of any method I've tried. The frequencies that need to be cut vary with each new recording.
--Stan Graves
Just curious Stan, when you say 'record' through your 31 band EQ, what do you mean. Are you talking about transferring music to computer? And which 31 band EQ product do you use?
When I say "record through the EQ" I mean that the EQ is an effect that is in the signal path between the source and the recorder.

So, I have a source for the music (i.e. turntable, tape player, CD player, microphone), that signal is sent to the mixer. After adjusting the levels, I send the signal to the EQ. From the EQ the signal is sent to the soundcard on the PC. I record on the PC using my sound editing software.

[Well...that's the simple version anyway. *Technically* I use a side effect chain on the mixer to send the fader level out to the effects chain (in this case the EQ), then back into the mixer, and then out through the master level. From the master out the signal goes to the soundcard, and then to the recorder. But...unless you understand how to use side chain effects, this part will probably just be confusing. ;) ]

I have a Behringer FBQ 2496 that I use when recording. There is nothing special about this choice, I simply needed a 31 band EQ and this was available for the right price on the day I went to buy. It is easy to adjust, and I understand how it will color the signal well enough to make good use of the effect.

For playback, I have a Behringer DEQ 2496 that I pair with a DCX 2496 for the PA system. This setup is a feature rich PA management system - with RTA to help set a flat response, and crossovers, limiters, and other effects to manage the overall PA setup.

--Stan Graves

Haydn
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:36 am
Location: London

#20 Post by Haydn » Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:46 pm

SoundInMotionDJ wrote:When I say "record through the EQ" I mean that the EQ is an effect that is in the signal path between the source and the recorder.

So, I have a source for the music (i.e. turntable, tape player, CD player, microphone), that signal is sent to the mixer. After adjusting the levels, I send the signal to the EQ. From the EQ the signal is sent to the soundcard on the PC. I record on the PC using my sound editing software.

I have a Behringer FBQ 2496 that I use when recording. There is nothing special about this choice, I simply needed a 31 band EQ and this was available for the right price on the day I went to buy. It is easy to adjust, and I understand how it will color the signal well enough to make good use of the effect.
Wow! It sounds as though you have an impressive setup Stan (although that's sort of implied by your user name :wink: ). So, whereas I record old 30s tracks on CD by importing them into iTunes on my computer, you import them via your Behringer external EQ box, into your sound card, using your sound editing software. Do you feel you can achieve noticeable and worthwhile improvements in the sound quality of 1930s tracks by doing it this way (compared with the track on CD)?

SoundInMotionDJ
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 8:27 pm

#21 Post by SoundInMotionDJ » Sun Dec 16, 2007 6:24 pm

Haydn wrote:Wow! It sounds as though you have an impressive setup Stan (although that's sort of implied by your user name :wink: ). So, whereas I record old 30s tracks on CD by importing them into iTunes on my computer, you import them via your Behringer external EQ box, into your sound card, using your sound editing software. Do you feel you can achieve noticeable and worthwhile improvements in the sound quality of 1930s tracks by doing it this way (compared with the track on CD)?
I am not a lindy DJ. But, I am hear to learn, and to trade some pointers.

Most of what I record falls into three categories:

1) Bootleg tapes. I collected a *lot* of bootlegs from bands when I was in college...and tape was the primary format for these. The recordings vary from "head in a bucket" sound quality, to very good. Most of my collection are "official" bootlegs - recorded from the board at a live show, and "accidentally" given to members of the fan club. For the most part I collected copies that were within the first 2 to 3 generations.

2) LPs that are out of print (i.e. not available on CD at all) from the 1960's and 1970's. The quality varies. My turntable is OK...but not really good. If I want the song, I will keep working until I get something that I am willing to play.

3) Quotes and sound clips from movies that I want to use but that I only have on VHS (if I have it on DVD, I can grab the audio during a normal playback). I get really good results from this. In most cases, what I am recording is spoken word, not music.

In those cases, the music is not available on CD to begin with...so some kind of recording is required. That is why I setup the mixer and EQ to begin with. :wink:

But, when I am faced with a set of CDs that have less than stellar quality, I will use the same method. I have a set of music from the 1940's - and the originals were less than stellar quality. I used the setup I described, and I think that the results are worth the effort.

The biggest reason I prefer to add EQ into a song is that when I setup the PA, I use the EQ to get a "flat response" (more or less) in the room, and I do not want to try to mess with the EQ from song to song to improve the sound in that way.

--Stan Graves

Haydn
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:36 am
Location: London

Some examples of tracks with 'hiss'

#22 Post by Haydn » Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:31 pm

Here are some examples of what I call 'hiss' on old tracks. They all have noise in the mid to high range. If you can't hear the hiss, turn up the treble and you'll hear what I mean -

Spring Cleaning from the CD Dick McDonough & His Orchestra, Vol. 1

By Heck from the CD The Fabulous Dorseys

Peckin' and Diga Diga Doo from the CD Duke's Men: The Small Groups, Vol. 1

Begin the Beguine from the CD The Complete Columbia Recordings of Mildred Bailey

Posin' from the CD The Best of Tommy Dorsey


I've also noticed certain labels seem to produce CDs with a lot of 'hiss'. One of these is the British JSP label, for example these CDs, which have good sound but a lot of 'noise' -

Bunny Berigan The Key Sessions 1931-1937

Bix & Tram

User avatar
Lawrence
Posts: 1213
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 2:08 pm
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Re: Some examples of tracks with 'hiss'

#23 Post by Lawrence » Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:52 pm

Haydn wrote:Here are some examples of what I call 'hiss' on old tracks. They all have noise in the mid to high range. If you can't hear the hiss, turn up the treble and you'll hear what I mean -
If you can't hear the hiss with the treble turned down, then why do you turn the treble up?!?!?

Vintage music sounds best when you don't try to make it sound modern by turning the treble up and over-compensating for the lack of high-end. As described above, THAT might be your problem, not the source material.
Lawrence Page
Austin Lindy Hop
http://www.AustinLindy.com

Haydn
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:36 am
Location: London

#24 Post by Haydn » Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:19 pm

Er, I don't turn the treble up Lawrence, I just suggested doing this if you can't clearly hear the 'hiss' on these tracks. Because if you turn the treble DOWN below its' normal position you may not hear the 'hiss' :wink:

straycat
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:11 am
Location: Durham, UK

#25 Post by straycat » Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:15 am

Slightly late response - I've been playing around with a couple of programs of late - DeNoise & ClickRepair.

For the first time yesterday, I used DeNoise properly 'in anger', so to speak, and was pretty impressed with the results.

Couple of samples, in case anyone's interested - I used Tough Truckin' off the Duke Ellington: The Complete 1936-1940 Vocalion and OKEH Small Group Sessions (Mosaic)

Which is probably heresy. C'est la vie.

DeNoise only works with uncompressed audio formats, so I pointed it straight at the aiff on the CD, then converted the results to MP3 with Sound Studio.

With a bit more fiddling, I think I could improve the result - the processed version is a little overcooked, so has a little too much of that muffled quality, but withstood a trial by fire last night on the blues floor, so I must have got something right.

Original Version (sample)
DeNoised Version (sample)

User avatar
Cyrano de Maniac
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: South Saint Paul, Minnesota
Contact:

#26 Post by Cyrano de Maniac » Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:24 pm

Wow, those are some impressive results. Much better than I would have expected.

Yeah, the cooked version seems a little "honky". I'd guess this effect might be able to be fixed up a little by playing with the EQ -- my first guess would be cutting somewhere in the range of 400-500 Hz. If you have a good graphic EQ (i.e. not a little 5 band one, probably 10 bands at least) you may be able to fix it up a bit. Even better if you have a parametric EQ available so it's easy to sweep the frequency looking for that "honk".

Anyway, good job, thanks for sharing those results.

Brent

User avatar
Eyeball
Posts: 1919
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:11 am
Contact:

#27 Post by Eyeball » Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:13 pm

It's crashed my browser 3 times. Firefox 3.0
Will big bands ever come back?

User avatar
Matthew
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 7:31 am
Location: St. Petersburg, Florida

#28 Post by Matthew » Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:40 pm

A big test comes when the music contains high frequencies. If you can cut the hiss, and keep the high stuff you want, then you can make it easier to hear the highest parts of the music because the hiss won't be masking those frequencies. I tried it, recently, with Ellington's "Goin' Nuts," from the Early Ellington set. I didn't save the results, but after a lot of tweaking, I had managed to remove the hiss AND make it easier to hear the hats/cymbals (at least on my system).

straycat
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:11 am
Location: Durham, UK

#29 Post by straycat » Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:17 am

Eyeball wrote:It's crashed my browser 3 times. Firefox 3.0
Which 'it'? The software? The sound samples? That strange killer clown that's been hanging around lately? ;)

If it's the sound samples, you could right click on 'em, save 'em, then try them in an mp3 player.

I'm not sure what to recommend about the clown.

SoundInMotionDJ
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 8:27 pm

#30 Post by SoundInMotionDJ » Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:46 am

straycat wrote:With a bit more fiddling, I think I could improve the result - the processed version is a little overcooked, so has a little too much of that muffled quality, but withstood a trial by fire last night on the blues floor, so I must have got something right.

Original Version (sample)
DeNoised Version (sample)
I think that "muffled" is about the right description. The hiss is certainly gone, but so is all the high frequency content. I think that a compromise that keeps some of the hiss might have been a better choice.

--Stan Graves

Locked