Slashdot Mirror


Digitizing Rare Vinyl

eldavojohn writes "While the RIAA is busy changing its image to a snake eating its own tail, one man is busy digitizing out-of-print 78s. 'There's a whole world of music that you don't hear anymore, and it's on 78 RPM records,' he stated to Wired. Right now, you can find about 4,000 MP3s on his site, with no digital noise reduction implemented yet."

35 of 397 comments (clear)

  1. Firsssssssst Posssssssst by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 5, Funny

    Cue the purists saying: "But it is supposed to have hiss. That's part of its character."

    1. Re:Firsssssssst Posssssssst by r_jensen11 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Cue the purists saying: "But it is supposed to have hiss. That's part of its character."

      Is that before or after they yell at him for not storing as .wav or .flac?

    2. Re:Firsssssssst Posssssssst by The+Ancients · · Score: 5, Funny

      Cue the purists saying: "But it is supposed to have hiss. That's part of its character."

      So you're saying they'd throw a hissy fit?

    3. Re:Firsssssssst Posssssssst by prestomation · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He's archiving as wavs, and simply making available the mp3s. I wouldn't want to host those wavs, do you?

    4. Re:Firsssssssst Posssssssst by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That was pretty brilliant of the record companies, though, don't you think? Make the medium out of nice, soft vinyl, and make the worthless, replaceable needle out of the hardest mineral on the Mohs scale.

      Brilliant, that is, if you want to maximize the rate at which the media wear out.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:Firsssssssst Posssssssst by Ziest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why doesn't he contact archive.org. Archiving old material is their mission. I know they have the storage space and the bandwidth to handle it. Besides, I want to be able to torrent all the wav files. ; -)

      --
      Another day closer to redwood heaven
    6. Re:Firsssssssst Posssssssst by lokedhs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Great, now you have the worst of both worlds.

    7. Re:Firsssssssst Posssssssst by dontmakemethink · · Score: 5, Funny

      Cue the purists saying: "But it is supposed to have hiss. That's part of its character."

      Is that before or after they yell at him for not storing as .wav or .flac?

      50 years from now they'll say, "It's supposed to have compression artifacts. It garbles the hiss to signify the archaic bandwidth and storage capacity."

      Actually they'll just think it, and their Facebook status will automatically update.

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    8. Re:Firsssssssst Posssssssst by spoco2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He's not charging anything, this is a guy with an old turntable, a Dell, the software that came with his SoundBlaster and a copy of MultiMediaJukebox to convert to MP3 and Roxio to burn to DVD.

      It's just a guy working with what he has, and I seriously doubt he has the room or the time to create 4 different formats for every one of the 4000 tracks he has.

    9. Re:Firsssssssst Posssssssst by PFI_Optix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Shhh we want to complain about how he doesn't do everything we want while giving us free music.

      His copy of Mack the Knife is BEAUTIFUL. Sounds better than my 78 version. I want his copy :(

      --
      120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
    10. Re:Firsssssssst Posssssssst by Xizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Transcoding from a lossy format to another lossy format sounds GREAT on the ears!

    11. Re:Firsssssssst Posssssssst by mstahl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why doesn't everybody quit bitching about it and help the guy out? If you couldn't tell by the website linked (and by the runaway HTTP errors), this is obviously not this guy's job and it's just something he's doing to do it. He's sharing all this great stuff with us, why don't some of us offer to assist with bandwidth/technical stuff?

    12. Re:Firsssssssst Posssssssst by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 4, Informative

      The record is not necessarily a lossy format. While pure digital (mp3s encoded at 320+) gives you a lot of good sound, it still can't compete with the warmth and depth of old fashioned vinyl. I realize a lot of people will disagree with this, but most of those people haven't listened to a record on a high quality turntable through a good amplifier playing on really good speakers.

      The difference is highly noticeable.

      Sadly, you'll find more folks listening through the speakers that came with their fancy new Dell claiming the difference can't be heard.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    13. Re:Firsssssssst Posssssssst by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They aren't really purists. They are audio snobs. There's a difference.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    14. Re:Firsssssssst Posssssssst by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, but without the up-modding of the post, would we really know how fucking awesome it really is?

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    15. Re:Firsssssssst Posssssssst by pz · · Score: 5, Informative

      That was pretty brilliant of the record companies, though, don't you think? Make the medium out of nice, soft vinyl, and make the worthless, replaceable needle out of the hardest mineral on the Mohs scale.

      Brilliant, that is, if you want to maximize the rate at which the media wear out.

      I have mod points right now, and this post makes me wish there was a "-1 ignorant" rating.

      You must be new here. Or at least not tech-savvy or young enough to never have thought about these things.

      If you want to minimize wear between two friction surfaces the WORST thing to do is to make them both out of the same material. The best is to make one hard and the other soft. I don't know why this is true, but perhaps someone more versed in mechanical engineering and materials science can explain. In watches, for example (mechanical ones), the jeweled bearings you hear about are typically a sapphire or ruby (synthetic) cone in which a metal (steel or brass) pin rotates, not gem-against-gem. So diamond-against-vinyl makes sense (hard against soft). And not all phonograph needles were diamond; that was a relatively late phenomenon.

      But far more important is how the medium -- the record itself in this case -- is manufactured. In some cases they were injection molded (rare), but more often they were pressed. Now think for a second, how are you going to make records, and do it inexpensively enough that you can sell them? Make them out of metal, like steel? And then what, cut each groove? Probably not (although that's exactly how the original lacquer disks were made). A moldable plastic sounds like a good idea. And that's how the majority of disks were (and still are) made: take a hot lump of vinyl, about the size and shape of a hockey puck, and press it between two hot disks of metal into which are carefully machined (ie, cut) grooves. Use enough pressure and the vinyl will replicate nearly every nuance of the mold. Although you can do this with a hard plastic, plastics are all pretty soft, and hard plastics have a regrettable tendency to break easily because they're brittle (like the old 78 RPM disks).

      Now, you can argue that perhaps a less expensive material could be used instead of diamond for the needle, and was for a long time (eg, garnet), but the materials cost of industrial diamonds that weigh a few micrograms is next to nothing. The expense is in the shaping (playback needles aren't just pointed cones, at least good ones weren't) since that requires highly specialized equipment and skilled labor.

      So, yes, it is brilliant to use diamond and vinyl. Did you ever see black dust or ribbon coming off of a record from the needle -- at least for one that was in proper alignment and not being dragged crosswise? I never did. And I still have my very playable record collection. The wear in records was not from removal of material, as with many wear mechanisms, but in gradual reshaping of the groove as the needle passed through. Thus the progress over time to lighter and lighter contact pressures and lighter and lighter cantilevers, with lighter and lighter moving masses -- eg, the moving magnet approach.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    16. Re:Firsssssssst Posssssssst by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Informative

      there is no real technical reason for vinyl to sound better

      Sorry, but your link is woefully ignorant and has some really bad inaccuracies. For instance, "The vinyl surface is heated to several hundred degrees on playback, and repeat play of the same track should wait at least several hours until the vinyl has cooled". That is just utter bullshit. Not everything in that article is wrong, but there is much wefully inaccurate information in it.

      The 44k samples per second of the CD limits the upper frequencies to 22kHz. Yes, that's higher than you can hear, but all the high frequency harmonics are gone. Those harmonics color the frequencies you CAN hear. Plus, the closer you get to that 22k, the more aliasing you have.

      Analog mastering introduces noise, but digital mastering introduces rounding errors and aliasing.

      If you have an analog medium from a digital master, or a digital medium from an analog master, you have the worst of both worlds, with th edisadvantages of both and the advantages of neither. The LP of Led Zeppelin's Presence will sound better than the CD (provided your turntable is good enough), while the CD of Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit will sound better than an LP version no matter how good your turntable is.

      Digital has a far larger dynamic range than analog, but oddly the only place you see those dynamics is in the movies, and they're done badly there. I've wished for a "dynamics compression" module so I could watch a movie where the music wasn't thundering while the speech is berely audible. CDs, OTOH, almost never use the dynamic range they are capable of. I can NOT for the life of me figure out why the LP version of Boston's first album has so much more dynamics than the CD version; technically, the CD should have more dynamics. It's just a matter of bad remastering.

      I got a few things wrong in Digital vs. analog- which is better? (tape speed for one), but whoever wrote that wiki you linked should read it.

      Also if you want to digitize your own vinyl, read How to rip from vinyl or tape. I should have more strongly stressed in both articles that with analog, the quality of the playback device is of utmost importance for fidelity. Usually with analog equipment (although not always) the more you pay, the better it will sound, even to untrained old ears.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  2. Other archival projects by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Library of Congress has an archival project:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1216161

    This is going the other way - from digital to 78's. Shellac 78's appear to be the best archival format.

    1. Re:Other archival projects by bertok · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stop quoting nonsense you heard from your grandpa.

      Film is a terrible archival medium, except for maybe silver based black and white film. It fades, the color changes, is easily damaged, and the original degrades when copied. George Lucas has spent $millions carefully restoring the archived Star Wars films, and they're a lot less than 50-60 years old. Film over 50 years old usually takes heavy processing to be even watchable.

      On the other hand, digital archives are trivial to copy losslessly, so there's no need for any physical media to last for the length of the archival time.

  3. Digitizing vinyl by Announcer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In my many years in Radio, I've digitized a considerable amount of music from LP's and 45's. In most cases, I could get moderately scratchy cuts to sound almost new. The transformation is pretty impressive, to say the least! However, I wouldn't even THINK of compressing it to MP3 until AFTER I had run it through an audio clean-up utility, like Cool Edit or Audacity.

    I wonder how badly the MP3 compression affects the music with all of that hiss and crackle taking-up so much bandwidth? Also, how much would the compression artifacts affect the ability of the clean-up utility to do its job?

    I think it is a laudable thing to preserve some of this priceless music! Kudos!

    --
    Willie...
    1. Re:Digitizing vinyl by KGIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I realize you're modded off topic but...

      Noise Removal - Audacity Wiki:
      http://www.audacityteam.org/wiki/index.php?title=Noise_Removal

      There are a pile of resources for Audacity, the wiki is one of the first places I'd look and, in this case, did.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  4. Re:why digitize vinyl? by icegreentea · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The same music isn't there in CD or MP3. That's the whole point. This stuff is out of print, never been released in CD. It's the in summary for god's sake! "There's a whole world of music that you don't hear anymore, and it's on 78 RPM records".

    And before something about noise reduction pops up. Noise reduction takes time. He rather put the mp3s up first. Notice the 'yet'. If you really want a song to be cleaner, clean it up yourself and then send the mp3 back to him.

  5. sovmusic.ru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    A Russian has been up to this since the mid-90s, digitizing old Soviet LPs (1930s on up) and putting them on his site (http://www.sovmusic.ru/english/) for free.

    It's a very extensive collection, and is worth a look, regardless of what you think about Russia's past or current behavior.

  6. Most 78's are NOT VINYL by shoppa · · Score: 4, Informative

    Most 78's (there are exceptions, including the very famous and historically important V-discs) are not vinyl.

    They are shellac, or rather a mixture of shellac, wax, slate, and a cotton or paper filler.

    I personally believe that the decline of the music industry is directly related to the replacement of shellac with vinyl, and that the RIAA must remedy this decline immediately.

  7. Be careful and use piezo cells, not magnetic ones by franois-do · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I would like to warn all people wanting to digitize 78rpm records : the sound you get using a magnetic cell, especially stereo or mono ones posterior to the invention of "universal engraving" (around 1965 ?), you will get a hissing and unpleasant sound, and poor restitution.

    Surprisingly, if you use a piezo, heavy cell (not suitable to read stereo records), you will get a much better sound, and almost no hiss. I got very good results at a time from a Dual 1010 turnable, unfortunately out of order now :-( I also have some Jack Hylton songs that do not seem to be present on his Internet tribute site (Bogey wail, Sarita...), for whoever is interested. I guess they are legally in the public domain now, as all of them date from before WW2.

    --
    Signature omitted in order to save space. Thanks for your understanding.
  8. Re:why digitize vinyl? by bcrowell · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The same music isn't there in CD or MP3. That's the whole point. This stuff is out of print, never been released in CD. It's the in summary for god's sake!

    Well, that isn't exactly what the summary says. The summary says the 78s are out of print, which is no surprise because 78s aren't produced anymore. There's definitely a ton of music on there that is available commercialy in modern formats. For instance, he has "Caravan," by Duke Ellington. That's an extremely famous jazz tune, and I can't imagine there's ever a time when you couldn't buy a commercial recording of it. You can buy it right now on Amazon in mp3 format for 99 cents, or on a CD reissue. I don't know if it's exactly the same performance or not.

    The Wired article also has a discussion of the copyright status of these songs, which basically amounts to, "nobody's sued him so far." I guarantee you that the composition of Caravan, for instance, is still in copyright -- Tizol and Ellington wrote it in 1936, so the only way it would have passed into the public domain would have been if the copyright owner had failed to renew it -- but it was a valuable commercial property (still is), and I'm sure they did renew it. (Nothing from after 1922 has expired in the US except by failure to do the renewal that used to be required.) I don't know about the copyright on the sound recording (is the duration different?), but I'd guess it's still also in copyright.

    If copyright law in the US was sane, a composition from 1936 would be in the public domain, but that doesn't change the fact that the law is not sane, it is what it is, and these recordings are not all out of print or out of copyright.

  9. i just posted this link 3 days ago by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    in the thread on the tragedy of the anticommons, but it seems even more relevant to this topic

    on the subject of intellectual property and the rare souls reviving old media through blood sweat and tears, the filmmaker vincent gallo said this four years ago:

    Capone: The songs selections here are inspired at times. I really liked the Gordon Lightfoot song "Beautiful."

    V.G.: Thank you. The amount of time I spent choosing the music of the film would be unbelievable to you. The funny thing is, when it's not right, you spend all your time playing songs for people saying, "What do you think of this one? How about this one? How about this one?" You're dying, when you're on that level. When you hit it, it's so obvious and you immediately get a desperate feeling that says, "How am I going to get the rights? Are they going to fuck me on the rights to this song?" And guess who are the worst people in the movie business. The licensing people. They are most miserable, mean, selfish, insensitive, regressive, unproductive on the planet earth. You don't know what it's like to feel so strong about something and not have a budget to make that go away. It's not like I was looking to get some Paul McCartney song for my movie; I'm talking about esoteric music. Some of the music in the film didn't even exist, I had to rebuild the original master tapes that had decomposed. I had to re-bake the tape stock, the emulsion on the tape had peeling off. I'm the only person in the world who would salvage this particular recording because I had an original three-track machine and I knew how to bake that type of Ampex tape. The tape would have disappeared in two more years, and it's highly spliced. Then to be ballbusted for a year and a half on the licensing on that music. We talk about how long it took for me to get the film out after Cannes was because the film wasn't ready due to negative problems. I wanted to use this technique to blow up the negative in a new way. That's why I waited so long to finish the film. But it turns out that I would have had to wait seven, eight months anyway was the releases for the music. If you were dealing with the musician directly, you wouldn't have these problems. It's the people representing these artists that kill the process. I realize if you want to use the Beatles song "Revolution" to sell eyeglasses, I understand the exploitation of that. I understand that I'm using culturally significant relics to manipulate people into attaching those to my product. But if I'm using a rare piece of music by and unknown artist, not to brag, but the people whose music I use in my films sell way more records than they were selling before they were in my film. Proof of it is, the Italian artist who did this one jazz piece in my movie had sold 600 copies worldwide before my movie. Before my film was released just on the announcement that they were included people tracked down the music, and they sold something like 6,000 more copies. Why you're treated like you're exploiting this music makes no sense. If they're going to make a tough deal for you, just be up front about it. But this sort of, "We don't have time for you. What do you want?" stringing along is nonsense. And I'm the producer on THE BROWN BUNNY. I didn't have a music supervisor. I did the licensing for BUFFALO 66 and THE BROWN BUNNY. And of all my memories of making the film, that's my most painful memories.

    bottom line: revive old media, bring renewed attention AND SALES to a long forgotten artist and piece of music, and expect the corporate intellectual property assholes to punish you for effort

    thats the state of intellectual property today

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i just posted this link 3 days ago by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thanks for that. When the Universal studio went up in smoke this year, it did not destroy films but it DID destroy the only known copies of any of their music from the 50s and earlier. How much money do you think they'll make from the ash? "Not a whole lot" is my guess. They also lost a lot of remastered early movies, where the originals are too artsy to be worth remastering again, going by $ value alone. Again, how much do you think they'll get from the smouldering remnants?

      Now, if those works had been generally available under public domain, those artists would be better known and maybe, if any works are still under honest copyright, have greater market value. But, no, they wanted their hard cash up-front and in big quantities, even if that meant risking losing everything. They don't care about what society has lost, they only care about what they can take for themselves.

      It might be better if there was staggered copyright whereby rights automatically revert from whoever owns the rights to the creator of the work after 40 years, and they (and their estate) get to hold the rights for a further 10 or 20 years. It wouldn't stop the corporate abuses, but it would restrict them, and it would lessen the need any actual artist might have for a longer copyright, because they'd be earning five to ten times as much per sale towards the end of the copyright lifetime.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  10. Removing hiss and pops by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As a suggestion, how about digitizing the songs several times and then using the redundant data to recreate the originals with no hiss or pop.

    As I understand it, pop is sometimes caused by buildup and sudden release of static electricity. This means that the pops will be in different places for different digitizations and can therefore be recognized and accounted for. Scratches, on the other hand...

    Hiss is stochastic noise and would average out over several recordings.

    It should be straightforward to use a correlation coefficient correction to bring all the recordings into "phase", then use a processing algorithm to remove most of the artifacts.

    The artifacts that remain can be removed using techniques more suited to single-images; ie - filtering to remove hiss and pop.

  11. Re:why digitize vinyl? by pixel.jonah · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sadly you're right - US copyright law is messed up.

    From: http://cylinders.library.ucsb.edu/copyright.php
    "Sound recordings were not eligible for federal copyright protection until 1972 and recordings made prior to this date are only protected by state and common-law copyright. All Edison cylinders are presumed to be in the public domain as the assets of Edison Records were transferred to the National Park Service, a federal agency. Other American sound recordings made prior 1972 may or may not be protected by state laws or common-law copyright. Foreign cylinders are all public domain in the country of production and are also presumed to be in the public domain in the United States.

    The nature of the various state laws and differing interpretations of these laws in state courts means that the legal status of many early recordings is unclear. The passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 reiterated that all recordings made prior to February 15, 1972 are only eligible for protection under state laws until February 15, 2067, when federal law preempts state law and they enter the public domain. While the Sonny Bono law was intended primarily to extend the copyright protection to the soon-to-expire copyrights of multinational corporations and heirs to songwriters, in effect it meant that all early recordings, no matter what their commercial potential, historical importance, or availability as reissues (with the exception of Edison Recordings) may be protected for well over 150 years after their creation. This is in stark contrast to the original copyright law passed in 1790 which granted a 14-year term of copyright (renewable for another 14 years) or the copyright law in effect for other types of publications when these cylinders were recorded which granted a copyright or 28 years, renewable for another 14 year (28 years after 1909). Not a single person who composed a song recorded on these cylinders or sang into the recording horn is alive today, which suggests that the original intent of copyright to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" has been completely usurped by the Sonny Bono law."

    This happens to be another incredible collection of old recordings: http://cylinders.library.ucsb.edu/

  12. CDDB by CranberryKing · · Score: 4, Funny

    You mean he doesn't have the CDDB plugin for his KLH turntable? Seriously, none of the files have any ID3 tags. He's also using an ACCESS database. I think the archive gods are displeased with this one.

  13. Re:Digitizing rare vinyl with a scanner by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was expecting someone putting a record into a flatbed scanner

    That's been tried, and it sort of works. But ordinary scanners don't have enough resolution. The Library of Congress has a scanner that does. They image the disc at a resolution of 1 micro per pixel, which yields 8 GB or so of imagery. Then they have software which can reconstruct the audio from the image.

    Not only is this useful for fragile, unique records, but it will work on cracked or scratched ones. It's even possible to reconstruct a broken record if you have all the pieces.

    The current scanner only works for horizontal recording; it can't read depth. So it won't work on vertically recorded records (Edison) or stereo (45/45 Westrex has two components 90 degrees apart.) They're working on that.

  14. Re:78's, 16's... by Z00L00K · · Score: 5, Informative

    And another part too...

    The 78 RPM records weren't on Vinyl - it's Shellac, which is a lot more sensitive than Vinyl.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  15. The QUAD underground by clokwise · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are also an amazing number of people who are transferring old Quad albums and tapes from the 70s. They digitize them and then re-release them on Bittorrent as DTS encoded .wav files which can playback with any CD player and any standard 5.1 surround sound system. I personally possess nearly a terabyte of such albums, and I've hardly scratched the surface of what's out there. It's amazing to listen these old quad albums because most of them were professionally mixed and they enable the listener to appreciate the music more than any stereo recording can, often you get entirely different takes than the stereo release. Check out http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound/ or Demonoid torrent site.

  16. Re:So who's going to stop this guy first? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What pisses me off to no end about that is that they'd rather let a rare piece of art vanish into oblivion rather than have it digitized and spread to preserve its existance. If we can't make money out of it, it's not worth existing.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.