Several people have tracked down Bruno through clues dropped in these entries and asked him to work his magic on recordings by _______. He's asked me to post this on his behalf:
"Can this audience/bootleg recording/MP3 be fixed?"
The answer is no, nothing can be done to make muffled cassette/audience recordings sound professional. And if anyone is asking, the same goes for low bit-rate MP3s which sound like gurgling water. The reason is that when cleaning up a vinyl recording, all of the sonic information in hearing range is there: it may be littered in clicks, compressed, strangely EQd, etc., but it's all there. With vinyl, the sound degradation is caused by *added* noise. So, restoring a vinyl recording is really about selectively removing all the added noise, to reveal the details of the recording underneath. With cassettes, MP3s, etc., the problem isn't so much noise, but that the finer details simply aren't there to begin with.
Think of a vinyl recording as a large printed poster which is full of creases and scratches, and perhaps a bit faded on the edges. You can scan it into Photoshop, and using "smart blur", eliminate some of them, although you'll also introduce other problems. But if you're patient, you can carefully zoom in, and with a variety of tools at your disposal, carefully patch each little imperfection one at a time. It's tedious, but the results are as good as one can get without going back to the masters. In essence, this is what I do.
In contrast, the cassette and the MP3 are the aural equivalents of the Polaroid picture and the heavily-compressed JPG. They were created for convenience and not for quality. They sound the way they do because they are lacking so much. There is simply no way, no matter how skilled one is, to restore the details that these formats lose. Forget about plug-ins which claim to restore lost harmonics; all these do is add harmonics via distortion.
"________ is my favorite band! Will you help me restore all their singles?"
Unfortunately, I'm already swamped with projects I wish to complete. It takes time to do this right.... a lot of time. So much that it can only be done as a labour of love, and by someone with a lot of spare time. I have never given serious consideration to offering my services for hire, simply because I don't see how I could do so at a reasonable cost. Secondly, I have no idea how long it will take me to do any given piece until I finish it. It depends not just on the condition of the record, but also the type of sounds recorded, and the types of surface noise present. Some albums I have been able to start and complete in the course of an evening, whereas a recent project of mine took approximately 2 hours of work for every *minute* of music.
Finally, my main focus is for recordings for which the master tapes are likely lost or damaged, in particular for obscure disco and electronic recordings from the 70s which have also suffered the indignity of being pressed at a time when the standards for vinyl quality in North America were quite low. It's rare that I would do this sort of work for an act as prominent as New Order. Most of the original Factory UK pressings are stellar (with the Temptation 7" and Run 2 being exceptions), and it's likely that the masters for all of their material are accounted for... [just so you know, most of them are missing - £50] it just seems that their label was unwilling to look for them or use them when it came to the recent reissues. However, there are untold thousands upon thousands of recordings, many unjustly fading into total obscurity, for which the only remaining existence of is through the ever-shrinking pool of second-hand vinyl. These have always been, and remain, my focus.

Thanks for the clarifications which are very enlightning.
ReplyDeleteAnd A Happy New Year to all.
I am well familiar with the pitfalls of vinyl restoration and you've given the lay persons some great metaphors - but will they comprehend? I'm a graphic designer and my personal "label" is the culmination of a lifetime of graphic design and music worship. I sometimes feel like a Post-Punk Monk, creating the digital equivalents of illuminated manuscripts as part of my attempt to commune with god. In doing this work whole months of my free time sometimes go into a particular project. My projects are usually thematic boxed sets of god ® as I call them: every track and track variation not on a group I collect's straight albums. I know well the sometimes mind-boggling work-to-master ratio and let me state that if any of mine ever got as high as 2hr:1minute of music (for no more than a track or so per disc - sure I've spent 7-8 hours on a 12" A-side more than once) I'd abandon it or try to buy another copy of that record in the hopes of getting a cleaner master to start with. I'm only armed with consumer level tools - I'm not a wealthy man, but ingenuity and a few useful tools have made quite a difference in my case. Like Bruno, I eschew crude, broadstroke methodologies for the surgical strike approach to NR as I am loathe to infect music with sonic artifacts as bad or worse than the noise you set out to eliminate in the beginning. I found this site from the link on Vinny Vero's blog. I used to be a fan of his from his EMI project days and his taste's in music are similar enough to mine that I like to se what he's writing about. As soon as I saw what you did with New Order, I immediately felt that I was among kindred spirits. My own modest NO project was a simple 3 disc set designed to supplement/correct "Substance." One day I plan on making a realZTT "boxed set" which will comprise everything from "Into Battle" to at least "Slave To The Rhythm" with the same level of detail you've achieved here.
ReplyDeleteREVO: the album in question (Captain Sky's "The Adventures of Captain Sky" -- a somewhat obscure P-Funk style outing from the late 70s) was a nightmare because it is (1) rare in any condition, (2) impossible to find in good condition, (3) poorly mastered, (4) pressed on terrible vinyl, and (5) there are no less than three different variants of the album. I wound up getting 5 different copies, plus a compilation, plus a rare and expensive promo single in order to complete it. If I could've found better sources I would've used them, but it took me two years just to get the ones I had.
ReplyDeleteDear Bruno
ReplyDeleteI am in the struggle to track down and find the best CD issues of New Order albums. I have been doing some research and I found, for example, that Low-Life CD is a nightmare to deal with:
SON16/FACTORY - Preemphasis applied, too bright, slight unballanced channels.
CENTREDATE/LONDON - Looks like the same Factory CD but without preemphasis, but now the sound leans much more to the right channel.
Could be this an indication that we'd have to go for the vinyls?
If possible I wanted to make a list of all decent CD pressings for New Order albums, because it's hard to trust every pressing out there, and there are many.
Oh for the horror of late 70s vinyl. I hear your pain. When rarity is added to that equation I understand where years can evaporate. Once I get a project goal set, it can take 7-12 years before I finally buy all of the vinyl needed for it to begin. My personal bete noir is 7" exclusive B-sides. I generally find that 30+ year old 7" records are often a sonic horror. But you have to have everything!
ReplyDeletere: Low-Life
ReplyDeleteI have an '85 copy on Japanese Columbia 33C38-7413. Manufactured by DENON. I should analyze it and report my findings. - Yikes. That was the first time I've ever listened to that album on headphones in 25 years of owning it. It was painfully bright and presumably an exact dub of the Factory master of the time.
Dear Jeb,
ReplyDeleteI have noticed that the deployed AAC files for Recycle does not seem to have the standard lowpass created by iTunes AAC encoder or Nero AAC encoder (which are around 16-18kHz). Did you use any special settings on encoding these files? Sorry for asking this, it's just curiosity, as AAC at quality 0.70 do have a visible lowpass.
Although the use of the tape in this explanation has some truths, it's not quite like the MP3. In MP3, the information is simply missing, the more compressed, the more is missing (and this is why I hate with all this MP3 industry - you're buying songs with low quality when you go to your fav MP3 store, they're cheating). In tapes, the problem is more due to the quality of the tapes and/or the recorders, and the lack of ability of the tapers to use their gear properly and make good tapes, which do exist. Of course it's impossible to make a bad audience recording of a live concert to sound like a soundboard, but to say that tapes are impossible to be restored, that's a bit different.
ReplyDeleteThese badly recorded tapes also are part of a big annoyance, coming from the FLAC (or any other lossless formats) tribe, that asks for their precious (crappy sounding ones) tapes to not be converted to MP3. A CD or vinyl for sure must lose a lot of information when converted to MP3 and the differences are quite noticeable (if you really care to find them), but a really bad tape (taped in an audience recording, noisy, with an old or amateur equipment etc.) won't get any real (audible) benefit from being converted to FLAC instead of MP3, in most cases, unless of course you don't set the MP3 to be heavily compressed for whatever reason. The MP3 per se won't make things much worse in these situations. Neither the FLAC will make them better...
DjB: They were all encoded using whatever version of iTunes was current at the time.
ReplyDeleteMr. Mandelbrot: "but to say that tapes are impossible to be restored, that's a bit different" -- not really; many people are under the impression that because I can remove pops and clicks, I can somehow get a muffled, distorted audience recording to sound like it came from a soundboard. I can't. If you have the ability to do this, I'll gladly send all the people asking for that your way.
Bruno Republic...
ReplyDeleteI have Depeche Mode Sounds Of The Universe in Vinyl... can you advise a software to remove noise, clicks and pops when I rip it? There is a tiny low click here or there. Or is it better to leave at this way? I hope there is a good tool to improve the audio, and also... I'd like to add a +5.00dB boost. The ReplayGain values for this vinyl is -0.89 which seems to be fine, however, I noticed that your restored tracks are around -5.00dB.
Could you explain why Mute Records is doing remasters at -5.00dB, instead of -0.00dB like the original records were. Is that to supply a bit of balance between the Loudness Wars and the Audiophiles, but not entirely taking a stand in one of them?
Thanks
DjB® : I use Adobe Audition, but results depend not so much on the software, but how it is used. My process is largely manual.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the levels on LPs. You speak of -5.00db and -0.00db... in reference to what?
Sorry but I can't really comment on the mastering of LPs that I don't own and have yet to hear.
I understand what you mean about largely manual work.
ReplyDeleteRegarding LP, I mean, that in the 1990's, LPs and CDs were pressed with a 89dBFS measurement. That means that the Factory Low Life CD pressing (and LP) were about -1.00 (89dBFS). The loudness wars today have set a minimum value of -9.00dB (and that's really loud). Atrocities like Red Hot Chilli Peppers and Metallica albums, songs can reach -13.00dB. The loudest possible record is about -16.00dB but that would be pratically unlistenable.
So, CDs back from the eighties and very early nineties have a match on this 89dBFS level. Some of them 3dB higher, but not much past it. The movie industry decided to stay in the 83dBFS level and keeps that until today.
So the question is... since the most recognized well-mastered albums come from 1990, with a ceiling of 89dBFS, WHY do remastered records in 2009 tend to be higher than this value (having a -5.00dB instead of 0.00dB which was the righ in the past).