bracurrie Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Found this site today. http://www.rollofone.com/ Spoke with owner and bought a download. Great prices for digital copies of analog pre 1975 tapes and records. He uses an aural exciter when mastering the copies. Never heard of exciter tech before but it makes some sense. The download was to my ear (which isn't near golden) as being a tad bright. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Listened to the samples of Glenn Miller. Not impressive. I don't do it for a living or profit and I get better transfers from similar 78s with no "aural exciter." Great recordings need no processing, just honest playback. If a person wants to process it should be left to them. I get playback on my system from these records that is much more, IMHO, "exciting," than those samples. Those engineers put a lot more music on those discs than the systems of the time could reproduce, but we can now. Just play it back as it is. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 The Aphex Aural Exciter was developed to be used only on single instrument or vocal track before mix-down, not across an entire post mix-down music track. These devices were used in the mid-1970 through the 1980s on many popular vocalists albums, notably, James Taylor. Jackson Brown, Linda Ronstadt, Carly Simon, etc.--the entire music crowd of that genre--by the mixing engineer(s). When you listen to these albums today, they have bit of an edge and a fuzziness to the voices that sound like something like a bad cable or some other source that's resonating. The overtones seem highly overcooked, like the listener's teeth are resonating. I find these recordings to be somewhat fatiguing to listen to nowadays. Back in the 70s, I'm not sure that anyone could hear those byproducts on their phonograph records due to the other issues that go with transfer to vinyl. Nowadays those master tape recordings have been transferred to digital and the original mix-down SQ can now be heard quite easily. I haven't heard the tracks from the site you mention. Perhaps he has used his exciter to a level that doesn't result in this same type of side effect. It would likely need to be a very light setting since it's effectively being used on an entire recorded track instead of a single vocal track, Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 I get that a lot on the FM HD radio broadcasts and it sounds like over-modulation to me. JJK 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bracurrie Posted March 10, 2016 Author Share Posted March 10, 2016 The Aphex Aural Exciter was developed to be used only on single instrument or vocal track before mix-down, not across an entire post mix-down music track. The owner mentioned rolling off the signal from 13K 20db and using the exciter to "rebuild harmonics". Whatever that means. I could also have what he said wrong as I am not an audio engineer. But I did stay at .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muel Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 The Aphex Aural Exciter was developed to be used only on single instrument or vocal track before mix-down, not across an entire post mix-down music track. These devices were used in the mid-1970 through the 1980s on many popular vocalists albums, notably, James Taylor. Jackson Brown, Linda Ronstadt, Carly Simon, etc.--the entire music crowd of that genre--by the mixing engineer(s). When you listen to these albums today, they have bit of an edge and a fuzziness to the voices that sound like something like a bad cable or some other source that's resonating. The overtones seem highly overcooked, like the listener's teeth are resonating. I find these recordings to be somewhat fatiguing to listen to nowadays. Back in the 70s, I'm not sure that anyone could hear those byproducts on their phonograph records due to the other issues that go with transfer to vinyl. Nowadays those master tape recordings have been transferred to digital and the original mix-down SQ can now be heard quite easily. I haven't heard the tracks from the site you mention. Perhaps he has used his exciter to a level that doesn't result in this same type of side effect. It would likely need to be a very light setting since it's effectively being used on an entire recorded track instead of a single vocal track, Chris So THAT'S what's wrong with those albums! Drives me crazy. I was once told to sell my tubes and buy a Aphex Aural Exciter. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) The owner mentioned rolling off the signal from 13K 20db and using the exciter to "rebuild harmonics". Whatever that means. There's a clue... The old recordings typically don't have frequency response above ~10-12 kHz, if that. I've seen many older recordings that roll off above 7 kHz, e.g., Frank Sinatra recordings from before 1950. If you try to simply boost the EQ above those frequencies, all you hear is increased noise. If you artificially construct harmonics above 4-7 kHz (the top frequencies recorded in those old recordings), you can beat the noise and since you can't hear harmonics above second or perhaps third order (i.e., double or triple the fundamental frequency) you can approximate some of the top octave or two that wasn't recorded without incurring the penalty of added noise. This is also true without having to guess the relative levels of higher order harmonics above third order, but assuming that the original music track is fairly clean up to 4-7 kHz...which is the real question. I've heard many, many tracks that don't meet that criterion. Still, it's an intriguing approach. Setting up the aural exciter to only boost/synthesize those higher frequencies to produce second and maybe third harmonics, and not any of the fundamental track frequencies is also an interesting game. I bet that the guy has to do each track one-at-a-time, or at least, he has to set up the first track on an album extremely carefully, then apply the settings to the succeeding tracks, like I've found is necessary for unmastering tracks. I also find that I have to look at each track after processing to make sure that something didn't change from track to track. Chris Edited March 10, 2016 by Chris A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bracurrie Posted March 10, 2016 Author Share Posted March 10, 2016 BTW he will provide a DSD straight copy with no processing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) One of the other issues I still see is with cymbals. There are so many frequencies involved with percussion instruments that it's difficult to talk about a "fundamental frequency" with non-timpani impulses, such as cymbals--especially above 10kHz. Perhaps there is a way to keep from creating and amplifying cymbal harmonics using the aural exciter's detection circuitry. This has always been a mystery area for these devices as far as I'm concerned, and the reason why you couldn't use the exciters on anything that also has percussion instruments, i.e., vocals or solo wind instruments only, in the past: 1970s-1990s. Chris Edited March 10, 2016 by Chris A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bracurrie Posted March 10, 2016 Author Share Posted March 10, 2016 This is also true without having to guess the relative levels of higher order harmonics above third order, but assuming that the original music track is fairly clean up to 4-7 kHz...which is the real question. I've heard many, many tracks that don't meet that criterion. He is pretty picky as to the acceptance of source materials. He explained that many tapes the left channel is damaged and too bad for the tape to be used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bracurrie Posted March 11, 2016 Author Share Posted March 11, 2016 Ok, So I am convinced that the problem with the download from rollofone is simply EQ. I use Pro EQ2 as a plugin with my PureMusic audio engine and it has a feature for using a sidechain to auto match to a reference. So just for grins I was going to try that and use my high def download of the same song as the reference and see if I could EQ rollofone's mastered version to sound the same. But PM isn't a DAW and I can't see where to configure a sidechain input. BTW Pro EQ2 lets you use different places in the song for the automatch so I put the two versions into one song. Of course the reason for doing this is to see if I want to try some of his other files with my EQ fix to see if they are better. And before the PROs start lecturing me, I do understand that each mastering may use a different EQ. But at least its a fix for the very nice mix of jazz songs on rollofone's http://www.rollofone.com/?product=jazz-poll-winners which is what I downloaded. Thanks for any thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rollofone Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Howdy folks: Lively discussion here. I appreciate that. Just a few things: Those tapes we are working on are old. About 40 years old. As in vintage. Some are brittle, misused, torn, some lost quite some dbs - mostly on one or another channel. We are trying to bring them back as good as possible. Though none of our tapes has earned a 5 out of 5 stars rating in our ears yet. We are trying to be as careful as possible. Sometimes it's just a matter of taste. Some people may find it to bright, others like to hear the cymbals and hi-hats in their fully glory. In any way - each tape has its MP3 preview - so people may decide for themselves if they like the "style" or not. And - if we were completely wrong - for whatever reason - we're happy to get that tape out of storage to look at it again. Have fun and enjoy music. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Welcome to the forum. Any more specific comments on the posts above, i.e., using an aural exciter on full tracks instead of just vocal tracks? Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bracurrie Posted April 12, 2016 Author Share Posted April 12, 2016 Welcome to the forum Micheala! These guys have a lot of depth in audio, not just Klipsch speakers. Enjoy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rollofone Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Chris, Brad: First - we've got Klipsch monitors in the studio So - a good match. And I feel at home if people have suggestions on how to improve stuff. After all - nobody is in the possesion of the absolute knowledge. Chris: We don't use the exciter to "improve" the music. You are absolutely right: You would have to use the unit on a song by song measure if it would be your goal to push the audio. But that's not what we are doing. We are dealing with tapes (especially if 3 3/4 ips) that pretty much don't have anything from about 11 - 13 Khz upward. Just noise. So we're rolling this noise off and add a touch of exciter to re-create some upper harmonics. In other words: we exclusively use the unit to make up for losses due to the age and physical limitations of the tape. And those limitations are quite constant per side on a 4 track tape. If a tape varies in quality of the recording - and we have that from time to time - we notice that in our test runs and adjust the exciter (and other settings) accordingly in the transfer phase. But tapes like that usually have quite a few other problems and we use them only if it's a rare or special recording. As an example: We recently got Brubeck's "Time Out" - which is "the" must have recording for (almost) every Jazz fan. It was a marvelous copy with almost no need for any re-mastering ... for the first 10 minutes or so. It was warped at this point and spliced, the left channel dropped about 6db and the overall quality went from great to mediocre. We tried to get it back to par - but abondoned the tape after 4hrs of work. m. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Chris: We don't use the exciter to "improve" the music. You are absolutely right: You would have to use the unit on a song by song measure if it would be your goal to push the audio. But that's not what we are doing. We are dealing with tapes (especially if 3 3/4 ips) that pretty much don't have anything from about 11 - 13 Khz upward. Just noise. So we're rolling this noise off and add a touch of exciter to re-create some upper harmonics. In other words: we exclusively use the unit to make up for losses due to the age and physical limitations of the tape. And those limitations are quite constant per side on a 4 track tape This is precisely what I was referring to above. Bravo. Good use of the tool, IMO. Chris 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlson3 Posted September 6, 2016 Share Posted September 6, 2016 I'd use an exciter on a whole recording if "dull" - "Exile on Main Street" cd imo sounded better with that in series with a DBX 3BX - although I've had a lot of minimalist circuitry playback equipment including class A solid state and SE tube, I don't think audio is always so sacred that subjectively it should not have some tricks for make more intelligible and enjoyable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.