Dynacophil
I ain't Phil, I'm 'phile
this is what it looks like - shall be able do denois/crackle the TT-Signal....
what is it about? Senseful gear or voodoo?
Helge
-
We recently upgraded to a more current version of our forums software and have another level to go. This along with some server maintenance has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html
WTF is this: Garard Music Recovery Module
- Thread starter Dynacophil
- Start date
this is what it looks like - shall be able do denois/crackle the TT-Signal....
what is it about? Senseful gear or voodoo?
Helge
Register to hide this ad
mhardy6647
Lunatic Member
it is as you say. If it worked very well, they'd still be selling them in botique hi-fi establishments for $10k 
Dynacophil
I ain't Phil, I'm 'phile
Hi
so, one vote fore useless brick and one for maybe worth a look - if it does what it should..?!
difficult...
if this would work, should i buy it - for... say 50$?
Does it really work? Did anyone ever use it? i am a bit late to ask... i know, its just an hour left
Helge
so, one vote fore useless brick and one for maybe worth a look - if it does what it should..?!
difficult...
if this would work, should i buy it - for... say 50$?
Does it really work? Did anyone ever use it? i am a bit late to ask... i know, its just an hour left
Helge
There were a couple of these sorts of products -- SAE made another one, and I think at least one of the Burwen noise reduction units might have had something similar. And maybe Phase Linear's auto correlator. They use a delay and some sort of discriminator to block ticks and pops (which have a whole lot of higher-than-audio-frequency energy and so are easily identified), and then a bit of the following program information is dropped into the hole in the signal (that's why there is a delay, so that there is information to drop in).
I remember reading a positive review of the Garrard, but all these products had a couple of strikes against them, and the Garrard also had the negative of its name, which by then had been pretty thoroughly identified with cheap changers. But the real problem, I think, was that by the time ICs became cheap enought that such a product was affordable, the pendulum was beginning to swing toward the subjectivist approach, and while these things may have measured pretty decently, the electronics in them couldn't have helped but mess up the sound. So the high end people who fret about things like ticks and pops, since they know they are not simply part and parcel of playing records, were not likely to buy (especially a Garrard) and the great mass of record users, who couldn't even be bothered to clearn records, weren't going to buy a not cheap, and rather fussy extra piece of equipment.
I think that they do work, but I think that most of us nowadays probably would find their negatives more problematic than the things they are able to solve.
I remember reading a positive review of the Garrard, but all these products had a couple of strikes against them, and the Garrard also had the negative of its name, which by then had been pretty thoroughly identified with cheap changers. But the real problem, I think, was that by the time ICs became cheap enought that such a product was affordable, the pendulum was beginning to swing toward the subjectivist approach, and while these things may have measured pretty decently, the electronics in them couldn't have helped but mess up the sound. So the high end people who fret about things like ticks and pops, since they know they are not simply part and parcel of playing records, were not likely to buy (especially a Garrard) and the great mass of record users, who couldn't even be bothered to clearn records, weren't going to buy a not cheap, and rather fussy extra piece of equipment.
I think that they do work, but I think that most of us nowadays probably would find their negatives more problematic than the things they are able to solve.
crooner
Tube Marantzed
Totally agree with Nat. I think it's better to extract the most out of an LP than substracting noise artifacts with such a device. I'd rather live with some ticks and pops and have the musical goods come through.
A simple cartridge upgrade or a new phono stage can do wonders in this regard. When everything is set just right, ticks and pops on VG and even VG- records will not interfere with musical enjoyment, in my experience...
A simple cartridge upgrade or a new phono stage can do wonders in this regard. When everything is set just right, ticks and pops on VG and even VG- records will not interfere with musical enjoyment, in my experience...
Last edited:
Bob E.
Well-Known Member
I have one of the SAE 5000 Impulse Noise Reduction devices, and it does indeed work. It has a button labeled "invert" that removes the music and just plays the pops and crackles (so you can prove to yourself that it works, I guess). It has a slide-pot for sensitivity/discrimination and if you have it in invert-mode and slide it too far to the right, you start hearing the music in a crackly sort of way. During music mode, if you slide the pot too far, it starts filtering out some of the highs. For the geeks out there, it is based on a Motorola 68000 CPU (same as the first Macintosh) and has an algorithm that analyses the signal for fast-attack, short-duration, out-of-phase signal elements which it removes during the delay. It is not a magic cure for damaged, dirty records, but it does seem to reduce random clicks and pops.
--Bob
--Bob
danj
modern primitive
Back in 1974 I witnessed a demo of a Kenwood product that was quite similar to the Burwen tick and pop remover. When properly adjusted the reduction in record noise was startling. I suppose it would have considerable negative effect on the music if one was careless and overadjusted the thresholds.
I never saw one of those Kenwood devices outside of Japan. I heard they were sold in the USA but never saw one.
I once had a very good DNR unit with adjustable threshold and decay. (DNR was a single-ended noise reduction device for tape decks.) It was a very effective device that had no audible effect on music when used as intended. A little too much or too little adjustment and it really trashed the music. It sure quieted down some of those pre-Dolby cassettes and less than perfect r2r tapes.
I never saw one of those Kenwood devices outside of Japan. I heard they were sold in the USA but never saw one.
I once had a very good DNR unit with adjustable threshold and decay. (DNR was a single-ended noise reduction device for tape decks.) It was a very effective device that had no audible effect on music when used as intended. A little too much or too little adjustment and it really trashed the music. It sure quieted down some of those pre-Dolby cassettes and less than perfect r2r tapes.
Dynacophil
I ain't Phil, I'm 'phile
Hi
ok, i finally bid 65 EURO (~80$) and was outbid...
Helge
ok, i finally bid 65 EURO (~80$) and was outbid...
Helge
markn2wae
Mark T N2WAE
I worked on one of these things (too long ago to remember the model), it made a great CB radio receiver, I had to put a small mica cap. and a ferrite bead close to the input tranansistors to keep my nearby CB signal out of his phono input! (too much high frequency gain?)
Mark T.
Mark T.
I tried a Garrard MRM-101 "Music Recovery Module" when it came out. It was definitely a music filter and did a fairly poor job of removing pops & clicks. Others' advice is sound: improve your playback system to extract more music from the grooves and you'll be way ahead. You didn't miss anything losing the bidding war on this one...Dynacophil said:
Dynacophil
I ain't Phil, I'm 'phile
Hi DKak
thanks...
up til now i had the rule only to digitize very good to perfect vinyl. I thought maybe this could enlargen this range a bit to iclude a bit noisy records. But i guess, if i get one for very lo price (There is another auction online), i take it - if not i stay with my decision...
Helge
thanks...
up til now i had the rule only to digitize very good to perfect vinyl. I thought maybe this could enlargen this range a bit to iclude a bit noisy records. But i guess, if i get one for very lo price (There is another auction online), i take it - if not i stay with my decision...
Helge
DKak said:
Helge,Dynacophil said:
My routine for burning LPs to CD is to first burn them to a CD-R or RW using my Pioneer PDR-W37 recorder, connected to my hi-fi. The only tracks at this point are side 1 and side 2 from the record. I then copy the two tracks to my PC and use Wave Repair to clean them up and set individual song/track marks. "Clean up" for me includes removing pops & clicks, some surface noise, volume correction, etc. You can listen as you go to determine if the corrections are also affecting your recording's quality. I usually opt for a little less repair/correction in order to better preserve the music, but you can do darn near anything you want with it. Once I've completed all this, I burn a CD-R of the music, and it sounds terrific.
Since Wave Repair is also a manual waveform editor, you can correct tracking distortion, clipping and virtually everything else. This can take some time, but if you want a beautiful transfer to CD, it's worth it.
Wave Repair is surprisingly powerful and has been a great program for me. The best part is that it is not expensive, either (far cheaper than a pop & click reducing component)! You can get it at www.waverepair.com.
Hope this helps --
Dave
Dynacophil
I ain't Phil, I'm 'phile
Hi
I do other way, i record direct to harddisk. TT > Preamp > EWX 24/96 > Wav.
I don't want to spend the time to decrackle, denoise and declick the recordings, thats why i only record records that ar (nearly) noisefree. I do have the Software and also the experence and the hardware. Thats why i had the intention any gear that does this while the necessary recording would be best. But if this won't work well, i better stay with only using good vinyl. I haven't got the time to spend multiple time of playing time for every record. I usually don't cdr them, i have only 2 data-sets on harddisks. One on an external backup disk. I don't like cds too much playing from pc is more comfortable.
Helge
I do other way, i record direct to harddisk. TT > Preamp > EWX 24/96 > Wav.
I don't want to spend the time to decrackle, denoise and declick the recordings, thats why i only record records that ar (nearly) noisefree. I do have the Software and also the experence and the hardware. Thats why i had the intention any gear that does this while the necessary recording would be best. But if this won't work well, i better stay with only using good vinyl. I haven't got the time to spend multiple time of playing time for every record. I usually don't cdr them, i have only 2 data-sets on harddisks. One on an external backup disk. I don't like cds too much
playing from pc is more comfortable. Helge
Sansui Louie
Curmudgeon
It sucked.
End of story.
End of story.
Sae 5000a
Bob, have you opened your unit to look inside? I have repaired several of these and never seen a Motorola 68000 CPU in any of them. Unless you have some very late version that was totally redesigned you are wrong about the 68000 CPU.
I have the slightly later SAE 5000A that I use occasionally. It does remove the ticks and pops, however, there is not free lunch. So sometimes I use it and it is an improvement and sometimes it is better left out of the chain.Bob E. said:
Bob, have you opened your unit to look inside? I have repaired several of these and never seen a Motorola 68000 CPU in any of them. Unless you have some very late version that was totally redesigned you are wrong about the 68000 CPU.
Attachments
Last edited:
