I was looking at ultrasonic cleaners, and came upon an unexpected use, reducing surface noise of old LPs:
.<https://www.vevor.com/ultrasonic-cleaner-c_11064/15l-stainless-steel-lit er-industry-heated-ultrasonic-cleaner-heater-w-timer-usa-p_010646323549>
Look in the reviews with images.
Sebastian:
I didn't expect much given the price, but I was pleasantly surprised
to find that it works amazingly! It literally removed a skip/repeat
section that spin clean couldn't fix. It made the sound floor much
quieter, much less static and noise. Still experimenting with
solutions, but straight distilled water works wonders. I bought a
variable voltage charger for the spinning motor so that it spins much
slower than stock. I also bought label covers so they don't get wet.
Both from Amazon.
Wonder what Liz T. will think of this.
liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham)wrote:
Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
I was looking at ultrasonic cleaners, and came upon an unexpected use,
reducing surface noise of old LPs:
.<https://www.vevor.com/ultrasonic-cleaner-c_11064/15l-stainless-steel-lit >> er-industry-heated-ultrasonic-cleaner-heater-w-timer-usa-p_010646323549>
Look in the reviews with images.
Sebastian:
I didn't expect much given the price, but I was pleasantly surprised
to find that it works amazingly! It literally removed a skip/repeat
section that spin clean couldn't fix. It made the sound floor much
quieter, much less static and noise. Still experimenting with
solutions, but straight distilled water works wonders. I bought a
variable voltage charger for the spinning motor so that it spins much
slower than stock. I also bought label covers so they don't get wet.
Both from Amazon.
Wonder what Liz T. will think of this.
It looks very interesting; not intended specifically for cleaning
records but appears to do the job. I'm not sure about the tank size, it >looks as though 12" records may have to be aligned on a diagonal to get
them in.
If you are going to use it only on vinyl, a drop of isopropanol and a
drop of wetting-agent (unperfumed washing-up liquid) in the distilled
water might make it work more quickly or at a lower temperature. Don't
use alsohol on shellac and don't prolong the immersion, as some shellac >mixtures contained cotton or wood fibres which swell up when wet.
Beware of any unusual historic record materials - they may turn out to
be gelatine!
Critically, drying it is going to be the biggest problem. Slow draining
will allow debris-laden water to capillary into the groove bottoms and >concentrate any muck. Ideally it should be dried by strong suction to
get the water out as quickly and thoroughly as possible. (The Keith
Monks machine did it this way)
If you only want one good playing for digitising purposes, play it wet
and keep it wet throughout the playing time with a spray bottle of
water. A record that has been washed will often get noiser as it dries.
The claim that it cured a jumping groove is a curious one. I have known >cleaning to have this effect when the jumping was caused by
encrustations of a sugary substance spattered over the disc (by someone >coughing with a mouthful of food?). In general, most jumps are caused
by groove damage and would not be altered by cleaning.
Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
I was looking at ultrasonic cleaners, and came upon an unexpected use,
reducing surface noise of old LPs:
.<https://www.vevor.com/ultrasonic-cleaner-c_11064/15l-stainless-steel-lit >> er-industry-heated-ultrasonic-cleaner-heater-w-timer-usa-p_010646323549>
Look in the reviews with images.
Sebastian:
I didn't expect much given the price, but I was pleasantly surprised
to find that it works amazingly! It literally removed a skip/repeat
section that spin clean couldn't fix. It made the sound floor much
quieter, much less static and noise. Still experimenting with
solutions, but straight distilled water works wonders. I bought a
variable voltage charger for the spinning motor so that it spins much
slower than stock. I also bought label covers so they don't get wet.
Both from Amazon.
Wonder what Liz T. will think of this.
It looks very interesting; not intended specifically for cleaning
records but appears to do the job. I'm not sure about the tank size, it >looks as though 12" records may have to be aligned on a diagonal to get
them in.
If you are going to use it only on vinyl, a drop of isopropanol and a
drop of wetting-agent (unperfumed washing-up liquid) in the distilled
water might make it work more quickly or at a lower temperature.
Don't
use alcohol on shellac and don't prolong the immersion, as some shellac >mixtures contained cotton or wood fibres which swell up when wet.
Beware of any unusual historic record materials - they may turn out to
be gelatine!
Critically, drying it is going to be the biggest problem. Slow draining
will allow debris-laden water to capillary into the groove bottoms and >concentrate any muck.
Ideally it should be dried by strong suction to
get the water out as quickly and thoroughly as possible. (The Keith
Monks machine did it this way)
If you only want one good playing for digitising purposes, play it wet
and keep it wet throughout the playing time with a spray bottle of
water. A record that has been washed will often get noiser as it dries.
The claim that it cured a jumping groove is a curious one. I have known >cleaning to have this effect when the jumping was caused by
encrustations of a sugary substance spattered over the disc (by someone >coughing with a mouthful of food?). In general, most jumps are caused
by groove damage and would not be altered by cleaning.
It looks very interesting; not intended specifically for cleaning
records but appears to do the job. I'm not sure about the tank size, it >looks as though 12" records may have to be aligned on a diagonal to get
them in.
If you are going to use it only on vinyl, a drop of isopropanol and a
drop of wetting-agent (unperfumed washing-up liquid) in the distilled
water might make it work more quickly or at a lower temperature. Don't
use alsohol on shellac and don't prolong the immersion, as some shellac >mixtures contained cotton or wood fibres which swell up when wet.
Beware of any unusual historic record materials - they may turn out to
be gelatine!
Critically, drying it is going to be the biggest problem. Slow draining
will allow debris-laden water to capillary into the groove bottoms and >concentrate any muck. Ideally it should be dried by strong suction to
get the water out as quickly and thoroughly as possible. (The Keith
Monks machine did it this way)
The claim that it cured a jumping groove is a curious one. I have known >cleaning to have this effect when the jumping was caused by
encrustations of a sugary substance spattered over the disc (by someone >coughing with a mouthful of food?). In general, most jumps are caused
by groove damage and would not be altered by cleaning.
On 29 Dec 2025 21:10:03 GMT, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz[...]
Tuddenham) wrote:
Critically, drying it is going to be the biggest problem. Slow draining >will allow debris-laden water to capillary into the groove bottoms and >concentrate any muck.
I'd rinse it off with straight alcohol, maybe then spin dry it.
Ideally it should be dried by strong suction to
get the water out as quickly and thoroughly as possible. (The Keith
Monks machine did it this way)
Or blow it off using filtered clean dry compressed air. Maybe while
the disk is spinning.
Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
On 29 Dec 2025 21:10:03 GMT, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz[...]
Tuddenham) wrote:
Critically, drying it is going to be the biggest problem. Slow draining
will allow debris-laden water to capillary into the groove bottoms and
concentrate any muck.
I'd rinse it off with straight alcohol, maybe then spin dry it.
It depends how many discs you wanted to treat. You could finish up
wasting a lot of alcohol and generating an explosion risk.
Ideally it should be dried by strong suction to
get the water out as quickly and thoroughly as possible. (The Keith
Monks machine did it this way)
Or blow it off using filtered clean dry compressed air. Maybe while
the disk is spinning.
That might work better than the vacuum system but both have the
potential to create static charges on the disc surface which will
attract dust and make it noisy again.
Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
On 29 Dec 2025 21:10:03 GMT, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz[...]
Tuddenham) wrote:
Critically, drying it is going to be the biggest problem. Slow draining
will allow debris-laden water to capillary into the groove bottoms and
concentrate any muck.
I'd rinse it off with straight alcohol, maybe then spin dry it.
It depends how many discs you wanted to treat. You could finish up
wasting a lot of alcohol and generating an explosion risk.
Ideally it should be dried by strong suction to
get the water out as quickly and thoroughly as possible. (The Keith
Monks machine did it this way)
Or blow it off using filtered clean dry compressed air. Maybe while
the disk is spinning.
That might work better than the vacuum system but both have the
potential to create static charges on the disc surface which will
attract dust and make it noisy again.
On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 09:31:47 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
On 29 Dec 2025 21:10:03 GMT, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz[...]
Tuddenham) wrote:
Critically, drying it is going to be the biggest problem. Slow draining >> >will allow debris-laden water to capillary into the groove bottoms and
concentrate any muck.
I'd rinse it off with straight alcohol, maybe then spin dry it.
It depends how many discs you wanted to treat. You could finish up
wasting a lot of alcohol and generating an explosion risk.
Ideally it should be dried by strong suction to
get the water out as quickly and thoroughly as possible. (The Keith
Monks machine did it this way)
Or blow it off using filtered clean dry compressed air. Maybe while
the disk is spinning.
That might work better than the vacuum system but both have the
potential to create static charges on the disc surface which will
attract dust and make it noisy again.
I suppose that if you had two or more ratty records and wanted to make
a good digital copy, you could play them all and do some clever
processing.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 09:31:47 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
On 29 Dec 2025 21:10:03 GMT, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz[...]
Tuddenham) wrote:
Critically, drying it is going to be the biggest problem. Slow draining >> >> >will allow debris-laden water to capillary into the groove bottoms and >> >> >concentrate any muck.
I'd rinse it off with straight alcohol, maybe then spin dry it.
It depends how many discs you wanted to treat. You could finish up
wasting a lot of alcohol and generating an explosion risk.
Ideally it should be dried by strong suction to
get the water out as quickly and thoroughly as possible. (The Keith
Monks machine did it this way)
Or blow it off using filtered clean dry compressed air. Maybe while
the disk is spinning.
That might work better than the vacuum system but both have the
potential to create static charges on the disc surface which will
attract dust and make it noisy again.
I suppose that if you had two or more ratty records and wanted to make
a good digital copy, you could play them all and do some clever
processing.
The idea was peoposed by Peter Copeland of the UK National Sound Archive >about 20 years ago. At the time it wasn't possible to synchronise the
two copies accurately over a long period of time but he did manage to >synchronise them for a few seconds, which was long enough to demonstrate
that the idea worked
His concept was to have multiple copies on a 'cake-stand', all playing >simultaneously. The speed variations due to the turntable would be the
same for all copies and offset errors due to variations in the starting
point would be constant, so there would only be variations caused by >excentricity and ovality for the software to remove.
What most people don't realise is that a mono disc already contains two >copies of the sound, one on each groove wall; it is the difference
between these two copies that is used by my archival disc player to
identify the unwanted noise.
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/Turntables/de-clicker.htm>
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:34:44 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid[...]
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
I suppose that if you had two or more ratty records and wanted to make
a good digital copy, you could play them all and do some clever
processing.
The idea was peoposed by Peter Copeland of the UK National Sound Archive >about 20 years ago. At the time it wasn't possible to synchronise the
two copies accurately over a long period of time but he did manage to >synchronise them for a few seconds, which was long enough to demonstrate >that the idea worked
His concept was to have multiple copies on a 'cake-stand', all playing >simultaneously. The speed variations due to the turntable would be the >same for all copies and offset errors due to variations in the starting >point would be constant, so there would only be variations caused by >excentricity and ovality for the software to remove.
What most people don't realise is that a mono disc already contains two >copies of the sound, one on each groove wall; it is the difference
between these two copies that is used by my archival disc player to >identify the unwanted noise.
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/Turntables/de-clicker.htm>
The processing should obviously be digital. That would fix speed
variations, noise, skips, everything.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:34:44 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid[...]
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
I suppose that if you had two or more ratty records and wanted to make
a good digital copy, you could play them all and do some clever
processing.
The idea was peoposed by Peter Copeland of the UK National Sound Archive
about 20 years ago. At the time it wasn't possible to synchronise the
two copies accurately over a long period of time but he did manage to
synchronise them for a few seconds, which was long enough to demonstrate
that the idea worked
His concept was to have multiple copies on a 'cake-stand', all playing
simultaneously. The speed variations due to the turntable would be the
same for all copies and offset errors due to variations in the starting
point would be constant, so there would only be variations caused by
excentricity and ovality for the software to remove.
What most people don't realise is that a mono disc already contains two
copies of the sound, one on each groove wall; it is the difference
between these two copies that is used by my archival disc player to
identify the unwanted noise.
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/Turntables/de-clicker.htm>
The processing should obviously be digital. That would fix speed
variations, noise, skips, everything.
Why is that the first thing everyone says?
Nobody has made a digital system that works in real-time and can be
built into the base of a record player with a single control knob (as
far as I know). If it could be done in digital, why hasn't anyone done
it?
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 17:34:15 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:34:44 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid[...]
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
I suppose that if you had two or more ratty records and wanted to make >>> >> a good digital copy, you could play them all and do some clever
processing.
The idea was peoposed by Peter Copeland of the UK National Sound Archive >>> >about 20 years ago. At the time it wasn't possible to synchronise the
two copies accurately over a long period of time but he did manage to
synchronise them for a few seconds, which was long enough to demonstrate >>> >that the idea worked
His concept was to have multiple copies on a 'cake-stand', all playing >>> >simultaneously. The speed variations due to the turntable would be the >>> >same for all copies and offset errors due to variations in the starting >>> >point would be constant, so there would only be variations caused by
excentricity and ovality for the software to remove.
What most people don't realise is that a mono disc already contains two >>> >copies of the sound, one on each groove wall; it is the difference
between these two copies that is used by my archival disc player to
identify the unwanted noise.
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/Turntables/de-clicker.htm>
The processing should obviously be digital. That would fix speed
variations, noise, skips, everything.
Why is that the first thing everyone says?
Nobody has made a digital system that works in real-time and can be
built into the base of a record player with a single control knob (as
far as I know). If it could be done in digital, why hasn't anyone done >>it?
I was thinking of processing playbacks from several different disks,
to improve quality.
Surely a disk had some amount of 50/60 Hz hum lurking in the noise
floor. That could be used for timebase corrections.
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 09:57:18 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 17:34:15 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:34:44 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid[...]
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
I suppose that if you had two or more ratty records and wanted to make >>>> >> a good digital copy, you could play them all and do some clever
processing.
The idea was peoposed by Peter Copeland of the UK National Sound Archive >>>> >about 20 years ago. At the time it wasn't possible to synchronise the >>>> >two copies accurately over a long period of time but he did manage to >>>> >synchronise them for a few seconds, which was long enough to demonstrate >>>> >that the idea worked
His concept was to have multiple copies on a 'cake-stand', all playing >>>> >simultaneously. The speed variations due to the turntable would be the >>>> >same for all copies and offset errors due to variations in the starting >>>> >point would be constant, so there would only be variations caused by
excentricity and ovality for the software to remove.
What most people don't realise is that a mono disc already contains two >>>> >copies of the sound, one on each groove wall; it is the difference
between these two copies that is used by my archival disc player to
identify the unwanted noise.
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/Turntables/de-clicker.htm>
The processing should obviously be digital. That would fix speed
variations, noise, skips, everything.
Why is that the first thing everyone says?
Nobody has made a digital system that works in real-time and can be
built into the base of a record player with a single control knob (as
far as I know). If it could be done in digital, why hasn't anyone done >>>it?
I was thinking of processing playbacks from several different disks,
to improve quality.
Surely a disk had some amount of 50/60 Hz hum lurking in the noise
floor. That could be used for timebase corrections.
I recall reading that exactly this was done back in the days of tubes.
Don't recall where, but it may have been mentioned on SED.
Joe
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 14:07:07 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 09:57:18 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 17:34:15 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:34:44 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid[...]
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
I suppose that if you had two or more ratty records and wanted to make >>>>> >> a good digital copy, you could play them all and do some clever
processing.
The idea was peoposed by Peter Copeland of the UK National Sound Archive >>>>> >about 20 years ago. At the time it wasn't possible to synchronise the >>>>> >two copies accurately over a long period of time but he did manage to >>>>> >synchronise them for a few seconds, which was long enough to demonstrate >>>>> >that the idea worked
His concept was to have multiple copies on a 'cake-stand', all playing >>>>> >simultaneously. The speed variations due to the turntable would be the >>>>> >same for all copies and offset errors due to variations in the starting >>>>> >point would be constant, so there would only be variations caused by >>>>> >excentricity and ovality for the software to remove.
What most people don't realise is that a mono disc already contains two >>>>> >copies of the sound, one on each groove wall; it is the difference
between these two copies that is used by my archival disc player to >>>>> >identify the unwanted noise.
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/Turntables/de-clicker.htm>
The processing should obviously be digital. That would fix speed
variations, noise, skips, everything.
Why is that the first thing everyone says?
Nobody has made a digital system that works in real-time and can be >>>>built into the base of a record player with a single control knob (as >>>>far as I know). If it could be done in digital, why hasn't anyone done >>>>it?
I was thinking of processing playbacks from several different disks,
to improve quality.
Surely a disk had some amount of 50/60 Hz hum lurking in the noise
floor. That could be used for timebase corrections.
I recall reading that exactly this was done back in the days of tubes. >>Don't recall where, but it may have been mentioned on SED.
Joe
If the record is not exactly centered on the turntable (which it won't
be) there will be a once/rev speed wobble. That can be mathed out too, >especially if multiple playbacks are available.
Same with tape noise/wow/flutter. Maybe that's what "remastering"
means, lots of cool DSP.
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 17:34:15 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:34:44 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid[...]
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
I suppose that if you had two or more ratty records and wanted to make >> >> a good digital copy, you could play them all and do some clever
processing.
The idea was peoposed by Peter Copeland of the UK National Sound Archive >> >about 20 years ago. At the time it wasn't possible to synchronise the
two copies accurately over a long period of time but he did manage to
synchronise them for a few seconds, which was long enough to demonstrate >> >that the idea worked
His concept was to have multiple copies on a 'cake-stand', all playing >> >simultaneously. The speed variations due to the turntable would be the >> >same for all copies and offset errors due to variations in the starting >> >point would be constant, so there would only be variations caused by
excentricity and ovality for the software to remove.
What most people don't realise is that a mono disc already contains two >> >copies of the sound, one on each groove wall; it is the difference
between these two copies that is used by my archival disc player to
identify the unwanted noise.
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/Turntables/de-clicker.htm>
The processing should obviously be digital. That would fix speed
variations, noise, skips, everything.
Why is that the first thing everyone says?
Nobody has made a digital system that works in real-time and can be
built into the base of a record player with a single control knob (as
far as I know). If it could be done in digital, why hasn't anyone done >it?
I was thinking of processing playbacks from several different disks,
to improve quality.
Surely a disk had some amount of 50/60 Hz hum lurking in the noise
floor. That could be used for timebase corrections.
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 14:07:07 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 09:57:18 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 17:34:15 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:34:44 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid[...]
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
I suppose that if you had two or more ratty records and wanted to make
a good digital copy, you could play them all and do some clever
processing.
The idea was peoposed by Peter Copeland of the UK National Sound Archive
about 20 years ago. At the time it wasn't possible to synchronise the >>>> >two copies accurately over a long period of time but he did manage to >>>> >synchronise them for a few seconds, which was long enough to demonstrate
that the idea worked
His concept was to have multiple copies on a 'cake-stand', all playing >>>> >simultaneously. The speed variations due to the turntable would be the >>>> >same for all copies and offset errors due to variations in the starting >>>> >point would be constant, so there would only be variations caused by >>>> >excentricity and ovality for the software to remove.
What most people don't realise is that a mono disc already contains two >>>> >copies of the sound, one on each groove wall; it is the difference
between these two copies that is used by my archival disc player to >>>> >identify the unwanted noise.
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/Turntables/de-clicker.htm>
The processing should obviously be digital. That would fix speed
variations, noise, skips, everything.
Why is that the first thing everyone says?
Nobody has made a digital system that works in real-time and can be >>>built into the base of a record player with a single control knob (as >>>far as I know). If it could be done in digital, why hasn't anyone done >>>it?
I was thinking of processing playbacks from several different disks,
to improve quality.
Surely a disk had some amount of 50/60 Hz hum lurking in the noise
floor. That could be used for timebase corrections.
I recall reading that exactly this was done back in the days of tubes. >Don't recall where, but it may have been mentioned on SED.
Joe
If the record is not exactly centered on the turntable (which it won't
be) there will be a once/rev speed wobble. That can be mathed out too, especially if multiple playbacks are available.
Maybe that's what "remastering"
means, lots of cool DSP.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
Maybe that's what "remastering"
means, lots of cool DSP.
For accurate remastering, there should be none at all.
The art of professional remastering is to get all the geometry right and >correct any errors in the reverse order to that in which they occurred.
Once you have the best possible analogue signal, digitise it and confine
your digital manupulation to basic manual editing.
Something like Cedar can, if used correctly and sparingly, put the final >polish on a good recording, but using DSP to 'correct' other errors is >something done by amateurs who don't know any better.
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 09:57:18 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 17:34:15 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:34:44 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid[...]
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
I suppose that if you had two or more ratty records and wanted to make >>>> >> a good digital copy, you could play them all and do some clever
processing.
The idea was peoposed by Peter Copeland of the UK National Sound Archive >>>> >about 20 years ago. At the time it wasn't possible to synchronise the >>>> >two copies accurately over a long period of time but he did manage to >>>> >synchronise them for a few seconds, which was long enough to demonstrate >>>> >that the idea worked
His concept was to have multiple copies on a 'cake-stand', all playing >>>> >simultaneously. The speed variations due to the turntable would be the >>>> >same for all copies and offset errors due to variations in the starting >>>> >point would be constant, so there would only be variations caused by
excentricity and ovality for the software to remove.
What most people don't realise is that a mono disc already contains two >>>> >copies of the sound, one on each groove wall; it is the difference
between these two copies that is used by my archival disc player to
identify the unwanted noise.
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/Turntables/de-clicker.htm>
The processing should obviously be digital. That would fix speed
variations, noise, skips, everything.
Why is that the first thing everyone says?
Nobody has made a digital system that works in real-time and can be
built into the base of a record player with a single control knob (as
far as I know). If it could be done in digital, why hasn't anyone done >>>it?
I was thinking of processing playbacks from several different disks,
to improve quality.
Surely a disk had some amount of 50/60 Hz hum lurking in the noise
floor. That could be used for timebase corrections.
I recall reading that exactly this was done back in the days of tubes.
Don't recall where, but it may have been mentioned on SED.
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 14:07:07 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 09:57:18 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 17:34:15 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:34:44 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid[...]
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
I suppose that if you had two or more ratty records and wanted to make
a good digital copy, you could play them all and do some clever
processing.
The idea was peoposed by Peter Copeland of the UK National Sound Archive
about 20 years ago. At the time it wasn't possible to synchronise the >>>> >two copies accurately over a long period of time but he did manage to >>>> >synchronise them for a few seconds, which was long enough to demonstrate
that the idea worked
His concept was to have multiple copies on a 'cake-stand', all playing >>>> >simultaneously. The speed variations due to the turntable would be the >>>> >same for all copies and offset errors due to variations in the starting >>>> >point would be constant, so there would only be variations caused by >>>> >excentricity and ovality for the software to remove.
What most people don't realise is that a mono disc already contains two >>>> >copies of the sound, one on each groove wall; it is the difference
between these two copies that is used by my archival disc player to >>>> >identify the unwanted noise.
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/Turntables/de-clicker.htm>
The processing should obviously be digital. That would fix speed
variations, noise, skips, everything.
Why is that the first thing everyone says?
Nobody has made a digital system that works in real-time and can be >>>built into the base of a record player with a single control knob (as >>>far as I know). If it could be done in digital, why hasn't anyone done >>>it?
I was thinking of processing playbacks from several different disks,
to improve quality.
Surely a disk had some amount of 50/60 Hz hum lurking in the noise
floor. That could be used for timebase corrections.
I recall reading that exactly this was done back in the days of tubes. >Don't recall where, but it may have been mentioned on SED.
I found it, but not on SED if I recall. Here is what Google found:
"The hidden background noise that can catch criminals", Tom Scott, 21 December 2021.
.<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0elNU0iOMY>
Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 14:07:07 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 09:57:18 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 17:34:15 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:34:44 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid[...]
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
I suppose that if you had two or more ratty records and wanted to make
a good digital copy, you could play them all and do some clever
processing.
The idea was peoposed by Peter Copeland of the UK National Sound Archive
about 20 years ago. At the time it wasn't possible to synchronise the >> >>>> >two copies accurately over a long period of time but he did manage to >> >>>> >synchronise them for a few seconds, which was long enough to demonstrate
that the idea worked
His concept was to have multiple copies on a 'cake-stand', all playing
simultaneously. The speed variations due to the turntable would be the
same for all copies and offset errors due to variations in the starting
point would be constant, so there would only be variations caused by >> >>>> >excentricity and ovality for the software to remove.
What most people don't realise is that a mono disc already contains two
copies of the sound, one on each groove wall; it is the difference
between these two copies that is used by my archival disc player to
identify the unwanted noise.
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/Turntables/de-clicker.htm>
The processing should obviously be digital. That would fix speed
variations, noise, skips, everything.
Why is that the first thing everyone says?
Nobody has made a digital system that works in real-time and can be
built into the base of a record player with a single control knob (as
far as I know). If it could be done in digital, why hasn't anyone done >> >>>it?
I was thinking of processing playbacks from several different disks,
to improve quality.
Surely a disk had some amount of 50/60 Hz hum lurking in the noise
floor. That could be used for timebase corrections.
I recall reading that exactly this was done back in the days of tubes.
Don't recall where, but it may have been mentioned on SED.
I found it, but not on SED if I recall. Here is what Google found:
"The hidden background noise that can catch criminals", Tom Scott, 21
December 2021.
.<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0elNU0iOMY>
That was amateur recording, not professional historic discs.
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 08:53:13 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 14:07:07 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 09:57:18 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 17:34:15 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:34:44 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:[...]
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
I suppose that if you had two or more ratty records and wanted to make
a good digital copy, you could play them all and do some clever >>>>>>>>> processing.
The idea was peoposed by Peter Copeland of the UK National Sound Archive
about 20 years ago. At the time it wasn't possible to synchronise the >>>>>>>> two copies accurately over a long period of time but he did manage to >>>>>>>> synchronise them for a few seconds, which was long enough to demonstrate
that the idea worked
His concept was to have multiple copies on a 'cake-stand', all playing
simultaneously. The speed variations due to the turntable would be the
same for all copies and offset errors due to variations in the starting
point would be constant, so there would only be variations caused by >>>>>>>> excentricity and ovality for the software to remove.
What most people don't realise is that a mono disc already contains two
copies of the sound, one on each groove wall; it is the difference >>>>>>>> between these two copies that is used by my archival disc player to >>>>>>>> identify the unwanted noise.
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/Turntables/de-clicker.htm> >>>>>>>
The processing should obviously be digital. That would fix speed >>>>>>> variations, noise, skips, everything.
Why is that the first thing everyone says?
Nobody has made a digital system that works in real-time and can be >>>>>> built into the base of a record player with a single control knob (as >>>>>> far as I know). If it could be done in digital, why hasn't anyone done >>>>>> it?
I was thinking of processing playbacks from several different disks, >>>>> to improve quality.
Surely a disk had some amount of 50/60 Hz hum lurking in the noise
floor. That could be used for timebase corrections.
I recall reading that exactly this was done back in the days of tubes. >>>> Don't recall where, but it may have been mentioned on SED.
I found it, but not on SED if I recall. Here is what Google found:
"The hidden background noise that can catch criminals", Tom Scott, 21
December 2021.
.<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0elNU0iOMY>
That was amateur recording, not professional historic discs.
I'd expect that an autocorrelation function would dig out the wobble
FM.
Crosscorrelating the data from several different discs would be useful
too.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 09:31:47 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
On 29 Dec 2025 21:10:03 GMT, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz[...]
Tuddenham) wrote:
Critically, drying it is going to be the biggest problem. Slow draining >>> >will allow debris-laden water to capillary into the groove bottoms and
concentrate any muck.
I'd rinse it off with straight alcohol, maybe then spin dry it.
It depends how many discs you wanted to treat. You could finish up
wasting a lot of alcohol and generating an explosion risk.
Ideally it should be dried by strong suction to
get the water out as quickly and thoroughly as possible. (The Keith
Monks machine did it this way)
Or blow it off using filtered clean dry compressed air. Maybe while
the disk is spinning.
That might work better than the vacuum system but both have the
potential to create static charges on the disc surface which will
attract dust and make it noisy again.
I suppose that if you had two or more ratty records and wanted to make
a good digital copy, you could play them all and do some clever
processing.
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 14:07:07 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 09:57:18 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 17:34:15 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:34:44 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid[...]
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
I suppose that if you had two or more ratty records and wanted to make >>>>> >> a good digital copy, you could play them all and do some clever
processing.
The idea was peoposed by Peter Copeland of the UK National Sound Archive >>>>> >about 20 years ago. At the time it wasn't possible to synchronise the >>>>> >two copies accurately over a long period of time but he did manage to >>>>> >synchronise them for a few seconds, which was long enough to demonstrate >>>>> >that the idea worked
His concept was to have multiple copies on a 'cake-stand', all playing >>>>> >simultaneously. The speed variations due to the turntable would be the >>>>> >same for all copies and offset errors due to variations in the starting >>>>> >point would be constant, so there would only be variations caused by >>>>> >excentricity and ovality for the software to remove.
What most people don't realise is that a mono disc already contains two >>>>> >copies of the sound, one on each groove wall; it is the difference
between these two copies that is used by my archival disc player to >>>>> >identify the unwanted noise.
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/Turntables/de-clicker.htm>
The processing should obviously be digital. That would fix speed
variations, noise, skips, everything.
Why is that the first thing everyone says?
Nobody has made a digital system that works in real-time and can be >>>>built into the base of a record player with a single control knob (as >>>>far as I know). If it could be done in digital, why hasn't anyone done >>>>it?
I was thinking of processing playbacks from several different disks,
to improve quality.
Surely a disk had some amount of 50/60 Hz hum lurking in the noise
floor. That could be used for timebase corrections.
I recall reading that exactly this was done back in the days of tubes. >>Don't recall where, but it may have been mentioned on SED.
Joe
If the record is not exactly centered on the turntable (which it won't
be) there will be a once/rev speed wobble. That can be mathed out too, >especially if multiple playbacks are available.
Same with tape noise/wow/flutter. Maybe that's what "remastering"
means, lots of cool DSP.
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 11:39:26 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 14:07:07 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 09:57:18 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 17:34:15 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:34:44 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote: > > >john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote: >>>>[...] > >> I suppose that if you had two or more ratty records and >>>>wanted to make > >> a good digital copy, you could play them all and >>>>do some clever > >> processing. > > > >The idea was peoposed by Peter >>>>Copeland of the UK National Sound Archive > >about 20 years ago. At >>>>the time it wasn't possible to synchronise the > >two copies >>>>accurately over a long period of time but he did manage to > >>>>>synchronise them for a few seconds, which was long enough to >>>>demonstrate > >that the idea worked > > > >His concept was to have >>>>multiple copies on a 'cake-stand', all playing > >simultaneously. >>>>The speed variations due to the turntable would be the > >same for all >>>>copies and offset errors due to variations in the starting > >point >>>>would be constant, so there would only be variations caused by > >>>>>excentricity and ovality for the software to remove. > > > >What most >>>>people don't realise is that a mono disc already contains two > >>>>>copies of the sound, one on each groove wall; it is the difference > >>>>>between these two copies that is used by my archival disc player to > >>>>>identify the unwanted noise. > >
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/Turntables/de-clicker.htm>
The processing should obviously be digital. That would fix speed
variations, noise, skips, everything.
Why is that the first thing everyone says?
Nobody has made a digital system that works in real-time and can be >>>>built into the base of a record player with a single control knob (as >>>>far as I know). If it could be done in digital, why hasn't anyone done >>>>it?
I was thinking of processing playbacks from several different disks,
to improve quality.
Surely a disk had some amount of 50/60 Hz hum lurking in the noise >>>floor. That could be used for timebase corrections.
I recall reading that exactly this was done back in the days of tubes. >>Don't recall where, but it may have been mentioned on SED.
Joe
If the record is not exactly centered on the turntable (which it won't
be) there will be a once/rev speed wobble. That can be mathed out too, >especially if multiple playbacks are available.
Same with tape noise/wow/flutter. Maybe that's what "remastering"
means, lots of cool DSP.
Unless there's no other option, I don't believe they remaster from
vinyl records. They use the orignal 1" or 2" studio tapes.
On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 18:21:56 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 09:31:47 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
On 29 Dec 2025 21:10:03 GMT, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz[...]
Tuddenham) wrote:
Critically, drying it is going to be the biggest problem. Slow draining >>> >will allow debris-laden water to capillary into the groove bottoms and >>> >concentrate any muck.
I'd rinse it off with straight alcohol, maybe then spin dry it.
It depends how many discs you wanted to treat. You could finish up >>wasting a lot of alcohol and generating an explosion risk.
Ideally it should be dried by strong suction to
get the water out as quickly and thoroughly as possible. (The Keith
Monks machine did it this way)
Or blow it off using filtered clean dry compressed air. Maybe while
the disk is spinning.
That might work better than the vacuum system but both have the
potential to create static charges on the disc surface which will
attract dust and make it noisy again.
I suppose that if you had two or more ratty records and wanted to make
a good digital copy, you could play them all and do some clever
processing.
The rattiest parts tend to be towards the 'end' of the disk, though;
they're not typically randomly distributed throughout the recording.
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 11:39:26 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 14:07:07 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 09:57:18 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 17:34:15 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:34:44 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalidwanted to make > >> a good digital copy, you could play them all and
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote: > > >john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote: >> >>>>[...] > >> I suppose that if you had two or more ratty records and
do some clever > >> processing. > > > >The idea was peoposed by Peter
Copeland of the UK National Sound Archive > >about 20 years ago. At
the time it wasn't possible to synchronise the > >two copies
accurately over a long period of time but he did manage to >
synchronise them for a few seconds, which was long enough todemonstrate > >that the idea worked > > > >His concept was to have
multiple copies on a 'cake-stand', all playing > >simultaneously.
The speed variations due to the turntable would be the > >same for all >> >>>>copies and offset errors due to variations in the starting > >point
would be constant, so there would only be variations caused by >
excentricity and ovality for the software to remove. > > > >What most >> >>>>people don't realise is that a mono disc already contains two >
copies of the sound, one on each groove wall; it is the difference >
between these two copies that is used by my archival disc player to > >> >>>>>identify the unwanted noise. > >
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/Turntables/de-clicker.htm>
The processing should obviously be digital. That would fix speed
variations, noise, skips, everything.
Why is that the first thing everyone says?
Nobody has made a digital system that works in real-time and can be
built into the base of a record player with a single control knob (as
far as I know). If it could be done in digital, why hasn't anyone done >> >>>>it?
I was thinking of processing playbacks from several different disks,
to improve quality.
Surely a disk had some amount of 50/60 Hz hum lurking in the noise
floor. That could be used for timebase corrections.
I recall reading that exactly this was done back in the days of tubes.
Don't recall where, but it may have been mentioned on SED.
Joe
If the record is not exactly centered on the turntable (which it won't
be) there will be a once/rev speed wobble. That can be mathed out too,
especially if multiple playbacks are available.
Same with tape noise/wow/flutter. Maybe that's what "remastering"
means, lots of cool DSP.
Unless there's no other option, I don't believe they remaster from
vinyl records. They use the orignal 1" or 2" studio tapes.
Tape only came into use in the early 1950s - everything before that was >mastered directly to disc or film.
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 10:35:36 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 11:39:26 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 14:07:07 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 09:57:18 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 17:34:15 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:34:44 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >> >>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote: > > >john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote: >> >>>>[...] > >> I suppose that if you had two or more ratty records andwanted to make > >> a good digital copy, you could play them all and >> >>>>do some clever > >> processing. > > > >The idea was peoposed by Peter >> >>>>Copeland of the UK National Sound Archive > >about 20 years ago. At >> >>>>the time it wasn't possible to synchronise the > >two copies
accurately over a long period of time but he did manage to >
synchronise them for a few seconds, which was long enough todemonstrate > >that the idea worked > > > >His concept was to have
multiple copies on a 'cake-stand', all playing > >simultaneously.
The speed variations due to the turntable would be the > >same for all >> >>>>copies and offset errors due to variations in the starting > >point
would be constant, so there would only be variations caused by >
excentricity and ovality for the software to remove. > > > >What most >> >>>>people don't realise is that a mono disc already contains two >
copies of the sound, one on each groove wall; it is the difference > >> >>>>>between these two copies that is used by my archival disc player to > >> >>>>>identify the unwanted noise. > >
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/Turntables/de-clicker.htm>
The processing should obviously be digital. That would fix speed
variations, noise, skips, everything.
Why is that the first thing everyone says?
Nobody has made a digital system that works in real-time and can be
built into the base of a record player with a single control knob
(as far as I know). If it could be done in digital, why hasn't
anyone done it?
I was thinking of processing playbacks from several different disks,
to improve quality.
Surely a disk had some amount of 50/60 Hz hum lurking in the noise
floor. That could be used for timebase corrections.
I recall reading that exactly this was done back in the days of tubes. >> >>Don't recall where, but it may have been mentioned on SED.
Joe
If the record is not exactly centered on the turntable (which it won't
be) there will be a once/rev speed wobble. That can be mathed out too,
especially if multiple playbacks are available.
Same with tape noise/wow/flutter. Maybe that's what "remastering"
means, lots of cool DSP.
Unless there's no other option, I don't believe they remaster from
vinyl records. They use the orignal 1" or 2" studio tapes.
Tape only came into use in the early 1950s - everything before that was >mastered directly to disc or film.
You're giving your age away. :-)
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:^
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 10:35:36 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 11:39:26 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 14:07:07 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 09:57:18 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 17:34:15 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:34:44 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote: > > >john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> [...] > >> I suppose that if you had two or more ratty records and >>>>>>>> wanted to make > >> a good digital copy, you could play them all and >>>>>>>> do some clever > >> processing. > > > >The idea was peoposed by Peter >>>>>>>> Copeland of the UK National Sound Archive > >about 20 years ago. At >>>>>>>> the time it wasn't possible to synchronise the > >two copiesaccurately over a long period of time but he did manage to >
synchronise them for a few seconds, which was long enough todemonstrate > >that the idea worked > > > >His concept was to have >>>>>>>> multiple copies on a 'cake-stand', all playing > >simultaneously. >>>>>>>> The speed variations due to the turntable would be the > >same for all >>>>>>>> copies and offset errors due to variations in the starting > >point >>>>>>>> would be constant, so there would only be variations caused by > >>>>>>>>> excentricity and ovality for the software to remove. > > > >What most >>>>>>>> people don't realise is that a mono disc already contains two > >>>>>>>>> copies of the sound, one on each groove wall; it is the difference > >>>>>>>>> between these two copies that is used by my archival disc player to > >>>>>>>>> identify the unwanted noise. > >
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/Turntables/de-clicker.htm> >>>>>>>>>
The processing should obviously be digital. That would fix speed >>>>>>>>> variations, noise, skips, everything.
Why is that the first thing everyone says?
Nobody has made a digital system that works in real-time and can be >>>>>>>> built into the base of a record player with a single control knob >>>>>>>> (as far as I know). If it could be done in digital, why hasn't >>>>>>>> anyone done it?
I was thinking of processing playbacks from several different disks, >>>>>>> to improve quality.
Surely a disk had some amount of 50/60 Hz hum lurking in the noise >>>>>>> floor. That could be used for timebase corrections.
I recall reading that exactly this was done back in the days of tubes. >>>>>> Don't recall where, but it may have been mentioned on SED.
Joe
If the record is not exactly centered on the turntable (which it won't >>>>> be) there will be a once/rev speed wobble. That can be mathed out too, >>>>> especially if multiple playbacks are available.
Same with tape noise/wow/flutter. Maybe that's what "remastering"
means, lots of cool DSP.
Unless there's no other option, I don't believe they remaster from
vinyl records. They use the orignal 1" or 2" studio tapes.
Tape only came into use in the early 1950s - everything before that was
mastered directly to disc or film.
You're giving your age away. :-)
I used to claim to be an audio historian but I am more and more finding
that I am part of that history. :-(
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 10:35:36 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 11:39:26 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 14:07:07 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 09:57:18 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 17:34:15 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:34:44 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>> >>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote: > > >john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote: >>> >>>>[...] > >> I suppose that if you had two or more ratty records andwanted to make > >> a good digital copy, you could play them all and >>> >>>>do some clever > >> processing. > > > >The idea was peoposed by Peter >>> >>>>Copeland of the UK National Sound Archive > >about 20 years ago. At >>> >>>>the time it wasn't possible to synchronise the > >two copies
accurately over a long period of time but he did manage to >
synchronise them for a few seconds, which was long enough todemonstrate > >that the idea worked > > > >His concept was to have
multiple copies on a 'cake-stand', all playing > >simultaneously.
The speed variations due to the turntable would be the > >same for all >>> >>>>copies and offset errors due to variations in the starting > >point
would be constant, so there would only be variations caused by >
excentricity and ovality for the software to remove. > > > >What most >>> >>>>people don't realise is that a mono disc already contains two >
copies of the sound, one on each groove wall; it is the difference > >>> >>>>>between these two copies that is used by my archival disc player to > >>> >>>>>identify the unwanted noise. > >
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/Turntables/de-clicker.htm>
The processing should obviously be digital. That would fix speed
variations, noise, skips, everything.
Why is that the first thing everyone says?
Nobody has made a digital system that works in real-time and can be
built into the base of a record player with a single control knob (as >>> >>>>far as I know). If it could be done in digital, why hasn't anyone done
it?
I was thinking of processing playbacks from several different disks,
to improve quality.
Surely a disk had some amount of 50/60 Hz hum lurking in the noise
floor. That could be used for timebase corrections.
I recall reading that exactly this was done back in the days of tubes. >>> >>Don't recall where, but it may have been mentioned on SED.
Joe
If the record is not exactly centered on the turntable (which it won't
be) there will be a once/rev speed wobble. That can be mathed out too,
especially if multiple playbacks are available.
Same with tape noise/wow/flutter. Maybe that's what "remastering"
means, lots of cool DSP.
Unless there's no other option, I don't believe they remaster from
vinyl records. They use the orignal 1" or 2" studio tapes.
Tape only came into use in the early 1950s - everything before that was >>mastered directly to disc or film.
You're giving your age away. :-)
On Sun, 04 Jan 2026 11:16:31 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 10:35:36 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 11:39:26 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 14:07:07 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 09:57:18 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>> >>wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 17:34:15 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>> >>>(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:34:44 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>> >>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote: > > >john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:[...] > >> I suppose that if you had two or more ratty records and >>> >>>>wanted to make > >> a good digital copy, you could play them all and >>> >>>>do some clever > >> processing. > > > >The idea was peoposed by Peter >>> >>>>Copeland of the UK National Sound Archive > >about 20 years ago. At >>> >>>>the time it wasn't possible to synchronise the > >two copies
accurately over a long period of time but he did manage to >
synchronise them for a few seconds, which was long enough todemonstrate > >that the idea worked > > > >His concept was to have >>> >>>>multiple copies on a 'cake-stand', all playing > >simultaneously. >>> >>>>The speed variations due to the turntable would be the > >same for all
copies and offset errors due to variations in the starting > >point >>> >>>>would be constant, so there would only be variations caused by >
excentricity and ovality for the software to remove. > > > >What mostpeople don't realise is that a mono disc already contains two >
copies of the sound, one on each groove wall; it is the difference > >>> >>>>>between these two copies that is used by my archival disc player to >
identify the unwanted noise. > >
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/Turntables/de-clicker.htm> >>> >>>>>
The processing should obviously be digital. That would fix speed >>> >>>>> variations, noise, skips, everything.
Why is that the first thing everyone says?
Nobody has made a digital system that works in real-time and can
be built into the base of a record player with a single control
knob (as far as I know). If it could be done in digital, why
hasn't anyone done it?
I was thinking of processing playbacks from several different
disks, to improve quality.
Surely a disk had some amount of 50/60 Hz hum lurking in the noise
floor. That could be used for timebase corrections.
I recall reading that exactly this was done back in the days of tubes. >>> >>Don't recall where, but it may have been mentioned on SED.
Joe
If the record is not exactly centered on the turntable (which it won't >>> >be) there will be a once/rev speed wobble. That can be mathed out too, >>> >especially if multiple playbacks are available.
Same with tape noise/wow/flutter. Maybe that's what "remastering"
means, lots of cool DSP.
Unless there's no other option, I don't believe they remaster from
vinyl records. They use the orignal 1" or 2" studio tapes.
Tape only came into use in the early 1950s - everything before that was >>mastered directly to disc or film.
You're giving your age away. :-)
We played wax cylinders.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2026 11:16:31 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 10:35:36 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 11:39:26 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 14:07:07 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 09:57:18 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >> >>> >>wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 17:34:15 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >> >>> >>>(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:34:44 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid[...] > >> I suppose that if you had two or more ratty records and >> >>> >>>>wanted to make > >> a good digital copy, you could play them all and >> >>> >>>>do some clever > >> processing. > > > >The idea was peoposed by Peter
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote: > > >john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
Copeland of the UK National Sound Archive > >about 20 years ago. At >> >>> >>>>the time it wasn't possible to synchronise the > >two copies
accurately over a long period of time but he did manage to >
synchronise them for a few seconds, which was long enough todemonstrate > >that the idea worked > > > >His concept was to have >> >>> >>>>multiple copies on a 'cake-stand', all playing > >simultaneously. >> >>> >>>>The speed variations due to the turntable would be the > >same for all
copies and offset errors due to variations in the starting > >point >> >>> >>>>would be constant, so there would only be variations caused by >
excentricity and ovality for the software to remove. > > > >What mostpeople don't realise is that a mono disc already contains two >
copies of the sound, one on each groove wall; it is the difference >
between these two copies that is used by my archival disc player to >
identify the unwanted noise. > >
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/Turntables/de-clicker.htm> >> >>> >>>>>
The processing should obviously be digital. That would fix speed >> >>> >>>>> variations, noise, skips, everything.
Why is that the first thing everyone says?
Nobody has made a digital system that works in real-time and can
be built into the base of a record player with a single control
knob (as far as I know). If it could be done in digital, why
hasn't anyone done it?
I was thinking of processing playbacks from several different
disks, to improve quality.
Surely a disk had some amount of 50/60 Hz hum lurking in the noise
floor. That could be used for timebase corrections.
I recall reading that exactly this was done back in the days of tubes. >> >>> >>Don't recall where, but it may have been mentioned on SED.
Joe
If the record is not exactly centered on the turntable (which it won't >> >>> >be) there will be a once/rev speed wobble. That can be mathed out too, >> >>> >especially if multiple playbacks are available.
Same with tape noise/wow/flutter. Maybe that's what "remastering"
means, lots of cool DSP.
Unless there's no other option, I don't believe they remaster from
vinyl records. They use the orignal 1" or 2" studio tapes.
Tape only came into use in the early 1950s - everything before that was
mastered directly to disc or film.
You're giving your age away. :-)
We played wax cylinders.
I still do - and I record them:
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/CXP000/cxp000.htm>
liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham)wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2026 11:16:31 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 10:35:36 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 11:39:26 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 14:07:07 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 09:57:18 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >> >>> >>wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 17:34:15 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >> >>> >>>(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:34:44 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid[...] > >> I suppose that if you had two or more ratty records and >> >>> >>>>wanted to make > >> a good digital copy, you could play them all and >> >>> >>>>do some clever > >> processing. > > > >The idea was peoposed by Peter
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote: > > >john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
Copeland of the UK National Sound Archive > >about 20 years ago. At >> >>> >>>>the time it wasn't possible to synchronise the > >two copies
accurately over a long period of time but he did manage to >
synchronise them for a few seconds, which was long enough todemonstrate > >that the idea worked > > > >His concept was to have >> >>> >>>>multiple copies on a 'cake-stand', all playing > >simultaneously. >> >>> >>>>The speed variations due to the turntable would be the > >same for all
copies and offset errors due to variations in the starting > >point >> >>> >>>>would be constant, so there would only be variations caused by >
excentricity and ovality for the software to remove. > > > >What mostpeople don't realise is that a mono disc already contains two >
copies of the sound, one on each groove wall; it is the difference >
between these two copies that is used by my archival disc player to >
identify the unwanted noise. > >
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/Turntables/de-clicker.htm> >> >>> >>>>>
The processing should obviously be digital. That would fix speed >> >>> >>>>> variations, noise, skips, everything.
Why is that the first thing everyone says?
Nobody has made a digital system that works in real-time and can
be built into the base of a record player with a single control
knob (as far as I know). If it could be done in digital, why
hasn't anyone done it?
I was thinking of processing playbacks from several different
disks, to improve quality.
Surely a disk had some amount of 50/60 Hz hum lurking in the noise
floor. That could be used for timebase corrections.
I recall reading that exactly this was done back in the days of tubes. >> >>> >>Don't recall where, but it may have been mentioned on SED.
Joe
If the record is not exactly centered on the turntable (which it won't >> >>> >be) there will be a once/rev speed wobble. That can be mathed out too, >> >>> >especially if multiple playbacks are available.
Same with tape noise/wow/flutter. Maybe that's what "remastering"
means, lots of cool DSP.
Unless there's no other option, I don't believe they remaster from
vinyl records. They use the orignal 1" or 2" studio tapes.
Tape only came into use in the early 1950s - everything before that was
mastered directly to disc or film.
You're giving your age away. :-)
We played wax cylinders.
I still do - and I record them:
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/CXP000/cxp000.htm>
[...]liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham)wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2026 11:16:31 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
Unless there's no other option, I don't believe they remaster from
vinyl records. They use the orignal 1" or 2" studio tapes.
Tape only came into use in the early 1950s - everything before that was >> >>mastered directly to disc or film.
You're giving your age away. :-)
We played wax cylinders.
I still do - and I record them:
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/CXP000/cxp000.htm>
What sort of sense does that make?
liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham)wrote:
Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:
[...]liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham)wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2026 11:16:31 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
Unless there's no other option, I don't believe they remaster from
vinyl records. They use the orignal 1" or 2" studio tapes.
Tape only came into use in the early 1950s - everything before that was >> >> >>mastered directly to disc or film.
You're giving your age away. :-)
We played wax cylinders.
I still do - and I record them:
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/CXP000/cxp000.htm>
What sort of sense does that make?
Are you asking about the webpage or about the reasons for recording on
wax cylinders?
[...]liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham)wrote:
Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:
<cd@notformail.com> > >> wrote: [...]liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham)wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2026 11:16:31 +0000, Cursitor Doom
Unless there's no other option, I don't believe they remaster
from vinyl records. They use the orignal 1" or 2" studio tapes.
Tape only came into use in the early 1950s - everything before
that was mastered directly to disc or film.
You're giving your age away. :-)
We played wax cylinders.
I still do - and I record them:
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/CXP000/cxp000.htm>
What sort of sense does that make?
Are you asking about the webpage or about the reasons for recording on
wax cylinders?
Both, that web page says will record your music on wax cylinders?
and why would you (or anybody) record on wax cylinders?
liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham)wrote:
Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:
[...]liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham)wrote:
Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:<cd@notformail.com> > >> wrote: [...]
liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham)wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2026 11:16:31 +0000, Cursitor Doom
Unless there's no other option, I don't believe they remaster
from vinyl records. They use the orignal 1" or 2" studio tapes.
Tape only came into use in the early 1950s - everything before
that was mastered directly to disc or film.
You're giving your age away. :-)
We played wax cylinders.
I still do - and I record them:
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/CXP000/cxp000.htm>
What sort of sense does that make?
Are you asking about the webpage or about the reasons for recording on
wax cylinders?
Both, that web page says will record your music on wax cylinders?
and why would you (or anybody) record on wax cylinders?
The recorder was originally built to the specification of the UK
National Sound Archive with the ostensible intention of calibrating
their playback machines. I later discovered that this was actually an >exercise of a very different nature and I was being used as a guinea pig
to test a theory that the early Western Electric cutterheads did not
actually do what was claimed of them.
As I designed the cutterhead system, I was asked to report my findings
in detail. I found I could not get the feedback loop stable without a
lot of phase-shift components because of the unavoidable phase shifts in
the mechanical part. Eventually I worked out that the WE cutterhead was >using a feedback system that, at higher frequencies, ignored the
mechanical vibration and simply fed back the input signal by transformer >action. That explained how they were able to claim such a fantastic >high-frequency performance which did not appear on the recorded discs.
Having built the machine, I was able to offer calibration cylinders to >various archives who were doing research into historic recordings. It
also meant that I could record 'entertainment' cylinders if customers
wanted them - and they did. The novelty of having your own recording on
a cylinder which you can play on a clockwork machine appeals to some
people and one musical group has made one of their songs only available
on a limited edition cylinder.
I have also made a playback machine which can cope with historic
cylinders that have gone 'wonky' over the years:
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/ADM001/S05a.htm>
There is a lot of interest in this field because early cylinder machines
were not just designed to play cylinders, but recorded them too - so
unique historic recordings turn up from time to time and they are often
badly damaged.
But even then nobody wants to carve stuff on stone these days
liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham)wrote:
Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:
[...]
I have now cut far more cylinders than discs
and have discovered more ways the process can go wrong than the number
of cylinders I have cut.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 19:02:35 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
5 files (8,203K bytes) |
| Messages: | 184,913 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
