From the Higgs Boson Particle to Leadbelly 194
Roland Piquepaille writes "Physicists from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory are using the same methods to search for the elusive Higgs Boson particle and to digitally restore audio recordings from the past. Berkeley Lab signed an agreement with the Library of Congress to digitize the many thousands of early blues or jazz recordings it has in its archives. And the results are spectacular. Compare for example, these two versions of "Good Bye Irene", before and after being optically reconstructed (WAV format, 18 and 19 seconds). This news release describes the method used by the physicists. This overview contains other details and extra references about this project." We also covered finding Higgs Boson recently as well.
RIAA-MGM? (Score:3, Insightful)
quality loss (Score:4, Insightful)
Expensive record player (Score:3, Insightful)
Improved quality? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why WAV? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's better than an uncompressed format for this sort of archival work? I don't think there was any mention of the sample rate in the article, but it seems to me that they could make it as high as they want to, given that they are generating it from a model of an analogue system.
Obviously they are limited by the resolution of their scans, and the quality of their model, but it seems from the story that they have got both right already.
Better, but far from perfect... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Improved quality? (Score:1, Insightful)
Noise != charm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good thing(TM) (Score:5, Insightful)
That's precisely what they were recorded on, according to the article. That, and shellac, and wax. And it's not that we can't remaster them now. In fact, I have a CD of Leadbelly's LOC recordings. It's that this is a non-destructive way of remastering them. Prior to this, remastering them was merely playing them again. Granted it was in a controlled environment, with a near-perfect stylus and the record was painstakingly cleaned, but it was still playing them, and that is by definition destructive. Think of how this will change things. You can remaster something merely by taking a picture of it (yes, i'm oversimplifying). It will make remastering these recordings cheaper and more copies will be available (since the LOC doesn't have to worry about each remastering destroying the original)
Re:mod parent up (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:RIAA-MGM? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I still hear static (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Noise != charm (Score:3, Insightful)
But it seems like the methods for this are getting better and better. You're always walking a line, I think, when you start "extrapolating" information, and the more damaged a recording, the more of this you end up doing. It's all artifice in the end, I guess, but it does get you into interesting territory about recording... once it becomes digital it becomes totally fungible and who's to say what it "really" sounds like?
Bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Listen, you can by an SDAT tape drive that can read DAT tapes that were invented 15 years ago, and consolidate 10 of them into one new cartridge. And if you want to be safe, you make a copy and send that to a different site. And in 10 years there'll be a new generational standard that's backwards compatible, so you'll do another transfer then. Hell, you should be making multigenerational copies every few years and checking checksums between generations of media to make sure you're not propogating errors.
And why will this be possible? Because companies NEED THIS. They need to keep records for ages for various purposes. So the situation you detail will never happen if the custodians of the digital archive are just SLIGHTLY aware of the marketplace. Better than just leaving them to rot, eh?
Re:Improved quality? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you do a noise filter in Audacity 2.0, using some of the quiet parts toward the end to get the noise characteristics, you can get a very clear-sounding result. You may want to try different levels of filtering. I only filtered a little, since the defaults were too much.
pictures of records. (Score:5, Insightful)
How come it seems that no one is mentioning that they are mapping the surfaces of these records? That's the interesting part. That's why they are able to extract the audio from these records. They are essentially "taking photographs" of records and using a software program to simulate a needle traveling through the grooves. Removing pops and hisses is just run of the mill filtering (be it old high-pass, low-pass or newer wavelet techniques). This could be a neat new thing for record junkies to keep from futzing up their old records. Make a 3d model of the record then simulate it playing in a virtual record player.
Isn't that the amazingly cool part??