Modeling your work like an old movie sound track?

Chris Clawson said:

Has anybody ever attempted to model/EQ their work to resemble a 1920s phono record or early talking picture? It is probable that an EQ curve might be created to mimic different vintage recording media (like an RIAA curve, but intended to make a flat recording sound like an old sound track).
For that matter, my own renders are 'tinny'. There is nothing below 90 or 100 Hz coming from any of my libraries and I would appreciate some starting points these renders sound 'fatter'. Boosting lows just doesn't cut it.

Click to expand...

Have you tried Izotope Vinyl or Unfiltered Audio Needlepoint or Lofi-AF?

This thread about achieving a 1940's vintage strings sound might be worth skimming: https://vi-control.net/community/threads/vintage-string-library-1940s-sound.145541/

Chris Clawson said:

Has anybody ever attempted to model/EQ their work to resemble a 1920s phono record or early talking picture? It is probable that an EQ curve might be created to mimic different vintage recording media (like an RIAA curve, but intended to make a flat recording sound like an old sound track).
For that matter, my own renders are 'tinny'. There is nothing below 90 or 100 Hz coming from any of my libraries and I would appreciate some starting points these renders sound 'fatter'. Boosting lows just doesn't cut it.

Click to expand...

This is totally possible using a Matching EQ, like the one in Ozone. I personally find that the filtering sounds a lot more authentic than when using plugins like Vinyl, RC 20, etc. They can be useful for adding some crackling etc, however the filtering always sounds to 'clean'...

Great. I need to study the thread 'Fox' pointed to. It contains some misconceptions about old recordings (magnetic tape didn't exist), but points to a number of plugins which I need to explore.

For years now, I have been digitizing and restoring audio from my personal record collection and others. The technology of the era absolutely needs to be profiled in some way to mimic old recordings. I am not interested in 'clicks and scratches', but signal to noise ratio is important. I am mostly interested in the frequency response curve of the old systems.

Commercial acoustic recordings (18?? to 1924) were mechanical systems, which cut a stylus into a wax-like disc or cylinder medium. The capabilities of the system evolved in the early 1900s, but had basically reached it potential by World War 1. I would love to have a "white noise" recording from that era so I could study resulting response curve!

Electronic microphone recordings appeared in the market in 1925. The first Victor 10" records were electrically recorded after catalog number 19700. Condenser type microphones were used and actually were very good. Of course, the tube amplification did much to color the sound. Recordings were still made directly to cut disc masters. RIAA equalization and magnetic tape came after World War 2.
Once again, what would the curve from a 'white' noise recording of this era (1928) look like?

I use a 1928 Western Electric 4A reproducer to transfer my 78s. It was once part of a theater projection system which performed the Vitaphone talking picture films. It is a permanent magnet instrument, which produces over a volt (!) of audio on peaks. This was the tone arm which played the 16" diameter Vitaphone disc records. It's frequency response begins after 0Hz, is strong at 1-3KHz and then weakens rapidly upward to 5-7KHz. Knowing this helps some in my quest for "the curve", but the other variables are unknown to me.

The threads mentioned the possibilities of special libraries. I played with this idea, thinking I might sample sounds out of my vintage discs and form my own library. It may be possible, but is beyond my resources. I am hoping that a clever set of plugin modelling and studied equalization may be a more practical result.

Final comment (if anyone is still reading): Yes, the old studio setups and instrumentation are important variables. They are directly tied to the style of the times and available technology. Indeed, the technical limits of the studio in 1902 were understood by the engineers and it largely defined the performance art. A vocal in 1902 was almost exclusively performed with a piano, but by 1904, studio bands played accompaniment. Ever hear of a Stroh violin? It was a violin mechanism, whose bridge attached to a acoustic diaphragm (like an old Victrola) and directed the sound out of a trumpet style bell. This made a very directional instrument and was likely perfect for early recording studios. I love hearing these in my 1920s electrical recordings!

Okay.. I am looking to learn more about the over all response curves of these vintage recordings. How may we learn them (1900 - 1935)? How close might a modern band/orchestra instrument get to reaching this goal?

Chris Clawson said:

Has anybody ever attempted to model/EQ their work to resemble a 1920s phono record or early talking picture? It is probable that an EQ curve might be created to mimic different vintage recording media (like an RIAA curve, but intended to make a flat recording sound like an old sound track).
For that matter, my own renders are 'tinny'. There is nothing below 90 or 100 Hz coming from any of my libraries and I would appreciate some starting points these renders sound 'fatter'. Boosting lows just doesn't cut it.

Click to expand...

The thing about modelling band/chamber recordings from that era is that bunging an EQ on it isn't likely to be entirely effective. The pictures at the top of the page provides some clues as to what they were dealing with before 1925. Basically, you'd be wanting the close mic mix for many of the instruments, with a bit more space for the one or two Stroh violins in the second row. And I'm guessing they're playing f-ff for the most part. So, screechy.


Note the major change in seating after 1925 once the microphones have come in.

Chris Clawson said:

I use a 1928 Western Electric 4A reproducer to transfer my 78s. It was once part of a theater projection system which performed the Vitaphone talking picture films. It is a permanent magnet instrument, which produces over a volt (!) of audio on peaks. This was the tone arm which played the 16" diameter Vitaphone disc records. It's frequency response begins after 0Hz, is strong at 1-3KHz and then weakens rapidly upward to 5-7KHz. Knowing this helps some in my quest for "the curve", but the other variables are unknown to me.

Click to expand...

I don’t know if it was for this particular reproducing needle but I do recall that theaters were supposed to change needles as often as every twenty plays. They changed disks that frequently as well.

Film recordings from the era are quite variable. Vitaphone could be extremely high quality, especially for music. Sound on film was considered inferior especially for theatrical playback since it was subject to a pronounced wow and flutter but was editable whereas vitaphone required re-recording. For several years films were released in both formats, but by about 1933 the industry standardized around sound on film. First Warners changed to sound on film for production—its editing capabilities seemed decisive even though about the same time as Warners made the transition,new film “noiseless” film stock and some noise reduction techniques had been developed that allowed for vastly improved re-recording of sound on film. Re-recording becomes common for sound on film around 1932.

Again the results could be strikingly good, especially on Hollywood prestige films. But B production and films made outside the big studios often suffered from relatively poor sound, with a pronounced noise floor.

Theatrical playback remained the weak link through the late 1930s, and the release prints were mastered to reduced dynamic and frequency responses of theatrical playback systems. What we hear on remastered films today generally sounds far better than what would have been heard in a theater in the 1930s or even the 1940s, and not just because of digital touch ups. But the recording technology of the time also captured a higher quality than the release prints allowed.

gamma-ut said:

The thing about modelling band/chamber recordings from that era is that bunging an EQ on it isn't likely to be entirely effective. The pictures at the top of the page provides some clues as to what they were dealing with before 1925. Basically, you'd be wanting the close mic mix for many of the instruments, with a bit more space for the one or two Stroh violins in the second row. And I'm guessing they're playing f-ff for the most part. So, screechy.

Microphones page 2

Note the major change in seating after 1925 once the microphones have come in.

Click to expand...

Before electrical recording and the microphone, “mixing” was managed through choreography around the recording horn.

I love this portrayal of horn recording.



Though a fictional reconstruction and played for humor it captures something of the spirit of the pre-electrical recording practice. After the microphone, the choreography became a dance of the dials, as the recording engineer would mix the microphones in real time.

jbuhler said:

I don’t know if it was for this particular reproducing needle but I do recall that theaters were supposed to change needles as often as every twenty plays. They changed disks that frequently as well.

Film recordings from the era are quite variable. Vitaphone could be extremely high quality, especially for music. Sound on film was considered inferior especially for theatrical playback since it was subject to a pronounced wow and flutter but was editable whereas vitaphone required re-recording. For several years films were released in both formats, but by about 1933 the industry standardized around sound on film. First Warners changed to sound on film for production—its editing capabilities seemed decisive even though about the same time as Warners made the transition,new film “noiseless” film stock and some noise reduction techniques had been developed that allowed for vastly improved re-recording of sound on film. Re-recording becomes common for sound on film around 1932.

Again the results could be strikingly good, especially on Hollywood prestige films. But B production and films made outside the big studios often suffered from relatively poor sound, with a pronounced noise floor.

Theatrical playback remained the weak link through the late 1930s, and the release prints were mastered to reduced dynamic and frequency responses of theatrical playback systems. What we hear on remastered films today generally sounds far better than what would have been heard in a theater in the 1930s or even the 1940s, and not just because of digital touch ups. But the recording technology of the time also captured a higher quality than the release prints allowed.

Click to expand...

I have a Vitaphone projectionist's manual. What amazes me is that the main amplifier only had a few watts of audio for an entire theater! The speaker was gigantic and was basically a monster coiled horn. I notice RCA's Photophone system is an early competitor. I didn't mention in my first post that old records were usually single take, live performances. Post production editing was not a good option using transcription discs. I guess the film industry focused on optical track editing. I don't know much about it, but I wouldn't want to dub together too many generations of recording, even with an optical/film system. Second generation to a master was probably okay, but anything else would be unacceptable. Those of us who play with multi-generation magnetic tape mixes know what I mean.

Chris Clawson said:

Post production editing was not a good option using transcription discs. I guess the film industry focused on optical track editing. I don't know much about it, but I wouldn't want to dub together too many generations of recording, even with an optical/film system. Second generation to a master was probably okay, but anything else would be unacceptable. Those of us who play with multi-generation magnetic tape mixes know what I mean.

Click to expand...

Warners recorded on special disks that allowed superior (low noise) re-recording. My sense is that lining up the start points of the various disks was a much larger issue for re-recording than the transfer itself.

Sound on film had bigger issues with noise on re-recording and the rule of thumb was you could do only six generations before it was unusable. That rule of thumb dates from later though, and little re-recording of sound on film was done before 1932, except to add music. Even there many studios chose to record the music on set along with dialogue and principal photography, even though it made editing the scene from a set of takes virtually impossible (hence multiple camera shooting even for sound on film to allow editing of different shots). Another strategy was simply not to have background music (or much background sound at all). That created other problems though.

You can do a search of the audio recordings on the Library of Congress website and find some from the late 1800's -- there is bound to be some white noise in any one of those