Ah, that reminds me of the WaveEdit (or some such) software that came with my first "good" soundcard (SoundBlaster 32AWE, I think it was). I sampled some LP tracks onto my hard drive and was amazed that with the wave file editing software, with which it was of course very easy to see the large spikes where a pop or crack was, I could just use the mouse and re-connect the line across the base of the spike, and erase the spike, and, the pop was gone!
I tried that once with some other program. I think it might have been shareware.
Maybe I'm a dunce, but I never quite got it to make that much difference. Maybe I should have stuck with it more.
There is a video demonstrating the Burwen, very impressive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hCUzkVk1Z0
Maybe I'm a dunce, but I never quite got it to make that much difference. Maybe I should have stuck with it more.
There is a video demonstrating the Burwen, very impressive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hCUzkVk1Z0
Not with a passive device, no. Nor anything other than specific waveform classes, which could also remove signal content (the cleverness comes in recognizing what psychoacoustics will allow us to remove without causing major distress).
That pesky Second Law...
If you exclude certain 20th century composers it is fairly easy to distinguish music from noise even on quite a short excerpt. We can do it almost without thinking, even for music which does not suit our personal taste. You could probably program an AI system to do it, or train a neural network. Better, find a small demon and put him in a box with two wires coming out of it. Add a resistor to keep him warm.
Easy now to do now in software. These were devices full of analog computing circuitry with latency, etc. not at all the same thing.
Something as simple as looking for impossible rate of change of input based on the current smoothed rms value and BW of the music, does amazingly well in fact as good as any for sale tool I have demoed.
Scott,
Even those like me who have not even a scintilla of the electrical knowledge you do should intuitively know that the Bybee or any other simple passive device can not work to do something that would take true logic and comparisons to remove noise from signal.
On the second subject do you have a link or name to a open source solution for removing noise and pops from a record that we have input into a digital format? That would be interesting as I still do have my not huge collection of vinyl albums. Something that would work with an uncompressed format preferably.
Thanks,
Steven
Even those like me who have not even a scintilla of the electrical knowledge you do should intuitively know that the Bybee or any other simple passive device can not work to do something that would take true logic and comparisons to remove noise from signal.
On the second subject do you have a link or name to a open source solution for removing noise and pops from a record that we have input into a digital format? That would be interesting as I still do have my not huge collection of vinyl albums. Something that would work with an uncompressed format preferably.
Thanks,
Steven
All the better ones were tried in demo mode and would not do more than a little at a time. The worst seemed to work in the fourier domain trying to remove "impossible" frequency content. I gave up since only a few of my favorite LP's were damaged enough, so as others I did hand removal. I went one further and wrote a Cooledit/Audition plug-in that still seems to work (thanks to legacy support I guess). You select a start and end point and it does a third order spline interpolation for you. You are welcome to a copy and the source code (though it's for MS Visual C and the original SDK). I found the .net programming environment not for casual users and more like another job.
You will find yourself listening and looking for every last tick and it will get boring very fast, and worse yet you might get to hate the music.
EDIT - Windows only
Last edited:
Scott,
That is not what I think the DUT does. Nor do I think it really distinguishes between noise and signal. It just manages to under some operating conditions alter some classes of signals.
Now if you want to point out that perhaps the advertising for the device as you perceive it makes claims that are silly, I will not argue that issue except on April 1st.
Again my point for this was to see if the gizmo really cannot be distinguished from a resistor. Preliminary tests indicates that it can.
ES
This general subject calls to mind the fashionable advent and return to relative obscurity of wavelet analysis as applied to musical signals. It looked so promising for a while, but as the remark about certain "avant-garde" composers providing exceptions suggests, most musical sounds are rather well-analyzed by fourier-based spectral snapshots. However, the time domain is appropriate for extraordinary high-rate-of-change amusical events. Somewhere in the middle are the brief attack transients for certain instruments, which Risset and others looked at many years ago and determined had a huge amount to do with our perception and identification of specific ones, especially brass.
Maybe there is life left in some hybrid approach for automated cleanup of recorded audio. I would agree with Scott that manual noise removal has got to become incredibly tedious in a hurry. I'd liken it to a less-fun job comparable to animation, which as you may know is usually outsourced to places where, somehow, people are willing to do it. I still marvel at the early Disney films, the astonishing amount of labor involved. Walt must have been a slavedriver.
Maybe there is life left in some hybrid approach for automated cleanup of recorded audio. I would agree with Scott that manual noise removal has got to become incredibly tedious in a hurry. I'd liken it to a less-fun job comparable to animation, which as you may know is usually outsourced to places where, somehow, people are willing to do it. I still marvel at the early Disney films, the astonishing amount of labor involved. Walt must have been a slavedriver.
OTOH there's always "Clutch Cargo".
Syncro Vox (Clutch Cargo) - YouTube
ED - OK, I'll put the popcorn away for another day.
Scott,
That is not what I think the DUT does. Nor do I think it really distinguishes between noise and signal. It just manages to under some operating conditions alter some classes of signals.
Now if you want to point out that perhaps the advertising for the device as you perceive it makes claims that are silly, I will not argue that issue except on April 1st.
Again my point for this was to see if the gizmo really cannot be distinguished from a resistor. Preliminary tests indicates that it can.
ES
A quantum purifier do not distinguish between incoming noise and incoming signal.
What a passive quantum purifier do are simply to reduce the effect of quantum fluctuations / oscillations and thus giving a resulting reduced noise level. The quantum noise can be "picked up" by cables and components in the audio chain. If quantum noise are reduced on a RIAA input then it will not be amplified through the whole system, but will be "picked up" thru out the chain.
An active quantum purifier may have 10 to 1000 times the effectivity and may also affect other components like a TV in another room or floor by reducing the quantum fluctuations / oscillations in a area physically outside itself.
The use of the phrase "quantum fluctuations / oscillations" may not be 100% correct, but are used for illustration..
Yes that was a good example of how cartoons devolved.
My brother Scott did a lot of that and certainly wasn't hand-painting gels. The last major-paying gig was the early Family Guy, as a director (for example the episode Fifteen Minutes of Shame) but he maintains that this is a young person's business, and the work pretty much dried up as he approached 50 or thereabouts. Now he is the wine steward at a Vons market in Burbank, happy to get the health insurance.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.