How to clean surface noise from a 78

[Edisonfan]

Right, so a lot of my Blues and Jazz recordings have a lot of ware, which creates noise in recording for YouTube. Anyone have a suggestion for software to improve audio? I know there are a number of apps I just don’t know what to use?

Paul

[Curt A]

First, clean them with WD-40 - a small squirt, then wipe with the grooves using a soft cloth, then wipe off. This will improve surface noise on worn records and improve the appearance.. NO, it won't damage them further, in case you are wondering.

[Lah Ca]

If you are using a modern cartridge for the recording, I would start with broad band filtering out of frequencies above and below the frequency capabilities of the recording and playback hardware contemporary to the record. By eliminating the low frequencies, you will get rid of rumble from the cutting lathes. With the cut to the high frequencies, you will get rid of a lot of the hiss and high frequency noise caused by record wear/damage.

I have records that are unlistenable on my stereo, but which sound great on my HMV 102c. The 5a soundbox has its own unintentional noise filters, those set by the limitations of its effective frequency range.

I have a 78 of Elvis doing Let's Play House which is so very badly worn that it is painful to listen to on my stereo. But with a judicious choice of needle, it sounds remarkably good on my HMV 102c--a lot of the noise is filtered out and the needle rides a different area of the side walls of the groove than did the electrical cartridges it was played to death with. The dynamics of the record, however, seem to make it unplayable on other acoustic machines machines.

And even NOS 78s are noisy on modern equipment--engineers were not concerned about noise outside the range of playback capability. I found a never played Tommy Dorsey record--spindle hole never cleaned of pressing shellac crud--needed to be reamed out--and it was surprisingly high and low frequency noisy on my stereo but remarkably quiet on a 40s acoustic machine (with a thorn needle). It sounded great on both machines. Too bad it wasn't one of the great records.

If you want to get into things in a hard core way, there are a variety of different 78 styluses available for some cartridges--check out Esoteric Sound/Rek-o-Kut (business is up or sale BTW). They are of different sizes and tip configurations. They can help in trial and error searching for the least damaged areas of groove sidewalls.

A thorough physical cleaning of a record with boar hair brushes, a non-destructive cleaning fluid, and a vacuum record cleaning machine will allow you to get more fine detail out of your recordings but will also provide greater detail about the damage to the records. The crud of ages obscures the sound, both the good and the bad.

I am a fan of lubrication (waxes or oils) for badly damaged records that I will play only on acoustic machines. Drag is reduced. Noise is reduced. But I find that if I play treated records on my stereo, I only get a few plays before I have to clean my stylus.

Also, if things are important enough to put in the tedious labour of love work, most digital recording software will allow the micro editing out of clicks and pops.

[Edisonfan]

If you are using a modern cartridge for the recording, I would start with broad band filtering out of frequencies above and below the frequency capabilities of the recording and playback capabilities of the hardware contemporary to the record. By eliminating the low frequencies, you will get rid of rumble from the cutting lathes. With the cut to the high frequencies, you will get rid of a lot of the hiss and high frequency noise caused by record wear/damage.

I have records that are unlistenable on my stereo, but which sound great on my HMV 102c. The 5a soundbox has its own unintentional noise filters, those set by the limitations of its effective frequency range.

I have a 78 of Elvis doing Let's Play House which is so very badly worn that it is painful to listen to on my stereo. But with a judicious choice of needle, it sounds remarkably good on my HMV 102c--a lot of the noise is filtered out and the needle rides a different area of the side walls of the groove than did the electrical cartridges it was played to death with. The dynamics of the record, however, seem to make it unplayable on other acoustic machines machines.

And even NOS 78s are noisy on modern equipment--engineers were not concerned about noise outside the range of playback capability. I found a never played Tommy Dorsey record--spindle hole never cleaned of pressing shellac crud--needed to reamed out--and it was surprisingly high and low frequency noisy on my stereo but remarkably quiet on a 40s acoustic machine (with a thorn needle). It sounded great on both machines. Too bad it wasn't one of the great records.

If you want to get into things in a hard core way, there are a variety of different 78 styluses available for some cartridges--check out Esoteric Sound/Rek-o-Kut (business is up or sale BTW). They are of different sizes and tip configurations. They can help in trial and error searching for the least damaged areas of groove sidewalls.

A thorough physical cleaning of a record with boar hair brushes, a non-destructive cleaning fluid, and a vacuum record cleaning machine will allow you to get more fine detail out of your recordings but will also provide greater detail about the damage to the records. The crud of ages obscures the sound, both the good and the bad.

I am a fan of lubrication (waxes or oils) for badly damaged records that I will play only on acoustic machines. Drag is reduced. Noise is reduced. But I find that if I play treated records on my stereo, I only get a few plays before I have to clean my stylus.

Also, if things are important enough to put in the tedious labour of love work, most digital recording software will allow the micro editing out of clicks and pops.

Thank you! Basically I had a viewer say something about the noise on my Blind Lemon Jefferson record. It is a Paramount record, that was played a lot. Plus I know the material used in making said recording was not the best quality.

[Lah Ca]

Basically I had a viewer say something about the noise on my Blind Lemon Jefferson record. It is a Paramount record, that was played a lot. Plus I know the material used in making said recording was not the best quality.

If you were not such an erudite gentleman, you could tell that listener/viewer about two letters of the alphabet, the sixth and the fifteenth and in that order.

Let's compare two of my friends, one an audiophile with many thousands of dollars of high end gear, the other a professional musician with an MA in music.

I could not play 78s for my audiophile friend. He could not stand the noise. At home, he tended to listen to meticulously recorded records of quite boring music. His thing was listening to the overall sound. I don't think he really cared about the music all that much.

My musician friend would sit and listen to my 78s, particularly if they were Jazz or proto-Jazs and especially if they featured a singer. I asked him once if the noise bothered him. He looked startled and puzzled for a second and then said, "Oh ,,, there is noise, but that is not what I was listening to so I just didn't hear it." His thing was listening to the music and not to the noise.

[Edisonfan]

Basically I had a viewer say something about the noise on my Blind Lemon Jefferson record. It is a Paramount record, that was played a lot. Plus I know the material used in making said recording was not the best quality.

If you were not such an erudite gentleman, you could tell that listener/viewer about two letters of the alphabet, the sixth and the fifteenth and in that order.

Let's compare two of my friends, one an audiophile with many thousands of dollars of high end gear, the other a professional musician with an MA in music.

I could not play 78s for my audiophile friend. He could not stand the noise. At home, he tended to listen to meticulously recorded records of quite boring music. His thing was listening to the overall sound. I don't think he really cared about the music all that much.

My musician friend would sit and listen to my 78s, particularly if they were Jazz or proto-Jazs and especially if they featured a singer. I asked him once if the noise bothered him. He looked startled and puzzled for a second and then said, "Oh ,,, there is noise, but that is not what I was listening to so I just didn't hear it." His thing was listening to the music and not to the noise.

You’ve got a point there. A number of my Jazz and Blues records also have a lot of scratches on them, which contribute to the noise as well. Especially, since my collection of Jazz and Blues is from the 1920’s and is by black musicians.

[Edisonfan]

First, clean them with WD-40 - a small squirt, then wipe with the grooves using a soft cloth, then wipe off. This will improve surface noise on worn records and improve the appearance.. NO, it won't damage them further, in case you are wondering.

Never thought of that?

I do know that, my Black Swan and my Black Paramounts tend to have the most ware, and scratches. Compared to Columbia and Victor.

[Lucius1958]

I could not play 78s for my audiophile friend. He could not stand the noise. At home, he tended to listen to meticulously recorded records of quite boring music. His thing was listening to the overall sound. I don't think he really cared about the music all that much.

I couldn't help but think of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL5SzTSMxLU

- Bill

[Curt A]

"I do know that, my Black Swan and my Black Paramounts tend to have the most ware, and scratches. Compared to Columbia and Victor."

Consider the target audience for these records when new. Probably poor people without the means to spend money on new phonograph needles supposed to be used once and discarded... Almost every early blues record that I have seen, has been overplayed with used needles or old nails, resulting in extreme wear and surface noise. Beside that fact, the records were made cheaply.

[Edisonfan]

I could not play 78s for my audiophile friend. He could not stand the noise. At home, he tended to listen to meticulously recorded records of quite boring music. His thing was listening to the overall sound. I don't think he really cared about the music all that much.

I couldn't help but think of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL5SzTSMxLU

- Bill

Thank you Bill!