Author Topic: I've remastered a few Charlie Patton tracks. I'd appreciate some input. (Read 5523 times)

cc132 · « **on:** July 09, 2011, 10:08:49 AM »

Same old story as anyone else -- I'm trying to remove as much noise while preserving as much of the music as possible. I think I've come pretty close.

Opinions? Thoughts?

High Water Everywhere Part 1 - http://www.mediafire.com/?87u876og1upx3ug
Screamin and Hollerin the Blues - http://www.mediafire.com/?gimzr0rk8j087cl

(Sorry for the Mediafire links, but the files are too big to upload straight to the forum).

Slack · « **Reply #1 on:** July 09, 2011, 10:27:21 AM »

Those sound great to me - wow!

daddystovepipe · « **Reply #2 on:** July 09, 2011, 11:38:24 AM »

Congrats, best Patton I heard.

JohnLeePimp · « **Reply #3 on:** July 09, 2011, 01:27:25 PM »

Moar?

Gumbo · « **Reply #4 on:** July 09, 2011, 02:47:00 PM »

It seems to me that when one does this kind of thing you either get the noise or the vocal or the guitar.

compared to my jsp version it sounds like you have minimised the surface noise (i hear very little) and kept the vocal at the expense of the guitar. The vocal sounds clear and clean while the guitar has that shimmery artifact kind of sound.

Can I ask which source you started with?

cc132 · « **Reply #5 on:** July 09, 2011, 02:58:22 PM »

Quote from: Gumbo on July 09, 2011, 02:47:00 PM

Can I ask which source you started with?

Yazoo's "Founder of the Delta Blues" CD.

I monitor everything that I filter out, and I didn't hear any guitar in any of it. It's possible that the "full" sound of the guitar doesn't exist on the recordings at all, and the hiss/surface noise fills in for it.

Stumblin · « **Reply #6 on:** July 09, 2011, 04:34:09 PM »

High Water Everywhere part one sounds good to me. But now I don't know whether I don't actually prefer a bit of noise...

Norfolk Slim · « **Reply #7 on:** July 10, 2011, 04:18:40 AM »

Sounds really good to me too. Especially high water.

eric · « **Reply #8 on:** July 10, 2011, 07:37:31 AM »

That's pretty remarkable for an beat-up Paramount. I assume your method was pretty labor intensive and you didn't just apply some generic filters. Removing the patented Paramount bacon-frying background noise without degrading the signal too much is pretty cool. What software did you use?

lindy · « **Reply #9 on:** July 10, 2011, 09:53:22 AM »

These are days of miracle and wonder. A hobbyist, using basic software and hardware tools available to anyone, does in a week(?) month(?) what all kinds of expert recording engineers tried to do over 8-9 decades, with much better results. I can hear all kinds of little brush strokes and grace notes, sounds that I never knew existed, and I'm using really cheap speakers hooked up to my MacBook. Please describe the tools you used to do this.

Lindy

maddoggirl · « **Reply #10 on:** July 10, 2011, 02:48:26 PM »

Fantastic work, would love to hear more! I agree that there is a great deal of atmosphere and charm in the rickety originals, but it is nice to listen to Patton and not have to work

cc132 · « **Reply #11 on:** July 10, 2011, 03:42:53 PM »

Quote from: Eric Hubbard on July 10, 2011, 07:37:31 AM

That's pretty remarkable for an beat-up Paramount. I assume your method was pretty labor intensive and you didn't just apply some generic filters. Removing the patented Paramount bacon-frying background noise without degrading the signal too much is pretty cool. What software did you use?

Not labor intensive in the least bit, there was just a lot of trial and error to figuring it out. All the plug-ins I use are from Wave, using Ableton as the host (although the host is pretty inconsequential). The best thing about Waves plug-ins is that you can monitor the master-channel and the removed audio separately, so I can listen to what's being removed and fine-tune it so that none of the important signal is lost. That's why "Screamin' and Hollerin" still has some hiss -- I couldn't get rid of that last little bit of his without losing guitar.

Quote from: lindy on July 10, 2011, 09:53:22 AM

These are days of miracle and wonder. A hobbyist, using basic software and hardware tools available to anyone, does in a week(?) month(?) what all kinds of expert recording engineers tried to do over 8-9 decades, with much better results. I can hear all kinds of little brush strokes and grace notes, sounds that I never knew existed, and I'm using really cheap speakers hooked up to my MacBook. Please describe the tools you used to do this.

Lindy

Your thoughts are pretty in-line with mine. I actually don't think I deserve much credit for these sounding good -- I would never be able to come close to the results without using software that simply didn't exist 10 years ago. I'm just the guy pushing the buttons and fiddling the knobs.

Although, sadly, the software I use is far from basic. If the last 10 years is any indication, there will be nearly equivalent open-source software available to everyone within the decade (Office vs. OpenOffice, Photoshop vs. Gimp, etc).

All of that being said, I can clean up a track fairly quickly, so I'm open to requests. I know that some old recordings are nearly unlistenable, and I'd love to help out the community in any way I can. Anyone reading this should feel free to ask me to clean up any old songs that they'd like to hear better. I can't promise much, except that I'll do my best. I could use the practice anyway.

Slack · « **Reply #12 on:** July 10, 2011, 04:49:02 PM »

Fascinating CC, I'll have to check out the Wave software, not that I need anymore projects. And very generous of you to take requests. I always wished that Jaybird Coleman's recordings were not so whupped. For something different, how about 'Man Trouble Blues'?

cc132 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 10, 2011, 05:49:29 PM »

Quote from: Slack on July 10, 2011, 04:49:02 PM

For something different, how about 'Man Trouble Blues'?

Fantastic! The noise in this track is quite a bit different than what I had to take out of the Patton tracks (Coleman has more of a high-pitched crackle, rather than a lower tv-static kind of sound), which seems to be in the same frequency range as Coleman's voice. This should be a good challenge! Exactly the kind of suggestion I was hoping for.

eric · « **Reply #14 on:** July 10, 2011, 06:15:35 PM »

OK CC132,

How about Son House: Preachin' Blues and Dry Spell? Charley Patton's Green River Blues might be another good one.

cc132 · « **Reply #15 on:** July 10, 2011, 07:06:15 PM »

Quote from: Slack on July 10, 2011, 04:49:02 PM

Fascinating CC, I'll have to check out the Wave software, not that I need anymore projects. And very generous of you to take requests. I always wished that Jaybird Coleman's recordings were not so whupped. For something different, how about 'Man Trouble Blues'?

Alright, "Man Trouble Blues" was about as tough as expected. I can't get rid of the crackling at the very beginning without seriously affecting the harmonica, so it had to stay. Interestingly enough, you can actually hear someone walking around in the background, almost definitely on wood floors -- that would explain the heavy natural reverb on the vocals. Sounds like this one was recorded in a warehouse.

Jaybird Coleman - Man Trouble Blues: http://www.mediafire.com/?l4umxbm6y85oh8f

misterjones · « **Reply #16 on:** July 10, 2011, 07:11:32 PM »

Looking forward to listenting to them and incorporating them into my Patton analyses.

To further my Blind Lemon Jefferson study, I'd apprecaite it if you could take a crack at one or more of the following:

(1) Wartime Blues
(2) Rabbit Foot Blues
(3) Easy Rider Blues
(4) See That My Grave Is Kept Clean (2nd Version)

Slack · « **Reply #17 on:** July 11, 2011, 06:35:51 PM »

Quote from: cc132 on July 10, 2011, 07:06:15 PM

Quote from: Slack on July 10, 2011, 04:49:02 PM
Fascinating CC, I'll have to check out the Wave software, not that I need anymore projects. And very generous of you to take requests. I always wished that Jaybird Coleman's recordings were not so whupped. For something different, how about 'Man Trouble Blues'?

Alright, "Man Trouble Blues" was about as tough as expected. I can't get rid of the crackling at the very beginning without seriously affecting the harmonica, so it had to stay. Interestingly enough, you can actually hear someone walking around in the background, almost definitely on wood floors -- that would explain the heavy natural reverb on the vocals. Sounds like this one was recorded in a warehouse.

Jaybird Coleman - Man Trouble Blues: http://www.mediafire.com/?l4umxbm6y85oh8f

Thanks CC, pretty interesting. Not sure I picked up anyone walking around, but I'll listen again sometime -- there are some weird audio 'artifacts' and it does sound quite echo-y.

misterjones · « **Reply #18 on:** July 12, 2011, 08:05:57 AM »

I listened to your remasterings of "High Water Everywhere Part 1" and "Screamin' and Hollerin' the Blues". "High Water Everywhere Part 1" is first rate. It had virtually no surface noise and the underlying performance sound quality may have been as good as Yazoo's. (Hard to tell with all the noise on Yazoo!) It certainly bested The Definitive Charley Patton, which I think is the best sound-reduced set available. (I have not listened to the Pristine Classical CD.)

For some reason, "Screamin' and Hollerin' the Blues" didn't seem to reach the same level. The vocals sounded a bit harsh and flat, though the guitar sounded OK. Do you think there could have been too much noise reduction on that one?

JohnLeePimp · « **Reply #19 on:** July 12, 2011, 12:44:10 PM »

...for Screamin you could try the revenant (or jsp?) version as the base:

Tom Rushen · « **Reply #20 on:** July 12, 2011, 08:35:18 PM »

I guess it's all in what you're looking for. Certainly Patton's voice leaps out in these, which is fun, but it comes at the price of a natural-sounding guitar. The guitar here sounds very odd, digital artifacts galore. I also tend to like a brighter sound, and the EQ here has a dullness to it that is not my preference, though others may like it.

Thanks for giving it a go, and for sharing it.

cc132 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 18, 2011, 04:38:28 PM »

Just wanted to let everyone know that I have not forgotten about this -- I've just been incredibly busy with school and work lately. I will be getting to all of the requests soon.

lindy · « **Reply #22 on:** August 19, 2011, 03:01:38 PM »

Take your time, cc, all of this stuff on Weenie is supposed to be fun. I'm still enjoying playing the first two Charlie Patton cuts that you remastered and watching my friends' reactions when they listen on a decent pair of earphones.

L

JohnLeePimp · « **Reply #23 on:** August 21, 2011, 09:02:47 AM »

Quote from: cc132 on August 18, 2011, 04:38:28 PM

Just wanted to let everyone know that I have not forgotten about this -- I've just been incredibly busy with school and work lately. I will be getting to all of the requests soon.

school aye?

I'm liking how [us] toddlers are now well represented in the old-blues appreciation sphere

cc132 · « **Reply #24 on:** August 21, 2011, 03:02:41 PM »

Quote from: JohnLeePimp on August 21, 2011, 09:02:47 AM

Quote from: cc132 on August 18, 2011, 04:38:28 PM
Just wanted to let everyone know that I have not forgotten about this -- I've just been incredibly busy with school and work lately. I will be getting to all of the requests soon.

school aye?

I'm liking how [us] toddlers are now well represented in the old-blues appreciation sphere

I suppose (I'm 23...not sure how old you are). I think it's important to remember, though, that this music was old even when the current "old" generation was our age -- and just like it will be old when the generation below us discovers it. We may have the internet to help us discover things, but the process is still largely the same -- one, through sheer happenstance, hears a Robert Johnson or Son House track and decides to find out what else is out there.

As long as rock music is still popular, people will continue to seek out its roots. We aren't special by virtue of being young; we are just part of the natural cycle of things.

lindy · « **Reply #25 on:** August 22, 2011, 07:44:31 AM »

Quote from: cc132 on August 21, 2011, 03:02:41 PM

I suppose (I'm 23...not sure how old you are). I think it's important to remember, though, that this music was old even when the current "old" generation was our age -- and just like it will be old when the generation below us discovers it. We may have the internet to help us discover things, but the process is still largely the same -- one, through sheer happenstance, hears a Robert Johnson or Son House track and decides to find out what else is out there.

The Port Townsend workshop has a limited number of scholarships for people like you. Consider applying for one for next year. Send a link to these vids if you apply.

Stuart · « **Reply #26 on:** August 22, 2011, 09:01:23 AM »

Thanks for the work on the tracks, and for the links to the videos--well done. School and work come first, so "when time permits" is the best approach, IMHO.

I guess 23 is young in relative terms, but considering the accomplishments of relatively young musicians by that age (check out the Blue Goose catalog), such as our own Johnm, you're in good company regarding your passion for the music.

As a 61 year old, all I can say is to appreciate and enjoy your youth, as it won't last forever. And for the quote generator, I offer up the following:

"You're only young once, but you can be immature your entire life." --Anonymous

sworkshop · « **Reply #27 on:** August 24, 2011, 10:33:54 PM »

Very very good for removing noise. I have ALL the various remasters that have been released on Patton (CD). Some, like Yazoo want to give you everything...noise and all...and I'm glad to have it for a total, accurate, reference source.

Some remasters try to remove noise (like you) and I appreciate it because sometimes I just want to concentrate on the guitar part or lyrics...I don't need noise then.

So....

Your mixes are very succesful in the latter category, the only one better I've heard is the CD called 'Devil Sent Rain Blues'. These hit the mark removing the noise as well as you, but retain just a bit more natural sounding guitar, not quite as much comb filtering. Also, seems that you've slowed down the track a little, not that that hurts anything.

Thanks for posting!

[attachment deleted by admin]

Rivers · « **Reply #28 on:** August 25, 2011, 07:23:55 PM »

cc132 you are wise beyond your years.

misterjones · « **Reply #29 on:** August 31, 2011, 04:35:09 PM »

Quote from: sworkshop on August 24, 2011, 10:33:54 PM

. . . the only one better I've heard is the CD called 'Devil Sent Rain Blues'. These hit the mark removing the noise as well as you, but retain just a bit more natural sounding guitar, not quite as much comb filtering.

Thanks for the tip on this CD. I haven't made a full comparison yet with The Definitive Charley Patton - what I had considered the best noise-reduced Patton set - but at least many tracks on Devil Sent Rain Blues are superior (some remarkably so).

sworkshop · « **Reply #30 on:** September 01, 2011, 12:07:43 AM »

"Thanks for the tip on this CD. I haven't made a full comparison yet with The Definitive Charley Patton - what I had considered the best noise-reduced Patton set - but at least many tracks on Devil Sent Rain Blues are superior (some remarkably so)."

I digress for a moment to talk Patton collections:

'The Definitive is my second favorite goto when I want reduced noise, but 'Devil' really does a great job.

Yazoo is fantastic, but of course very noisy because that is their policy and I respect that.

Finally, Revenent set is a must have, but they often have some of the worst quality records...it has surface noise like Yazoo, but in some cases I believe they had different platters. The whole package, interviews, video, books they give you still make it it a winner.

Back to topic: this mixes this fellow has done are very very good, and I am interested in how he made the choice to use a different tempo. It works for me. I've heard about slowing down Robert Johnson all the time, but not Patton.

misterjones · « **Reply #31 on:** September 01, 2011, 07:51:11 AM »

Quote from: sworkshop on September 01, 2011, 12:07:43 AM

Back to topic: this mixes this fellow has done are very very good, and I am interested in how he made the choice to use a different tempo. It works for me. I've heard about slowing down Robert Johnson all the time, but not Patton.

To digress myself . . . I noticed a couple of the Devil Sent the Rain Blues tracks were slightly slower in pitch than the Definitive versions. I don't know if this was intentional or which one is correct.

GhostRider · « **Reply #32 on:** September 01, 2011, 04:53:56 PM »

Hi:

If your still taking requests and would like a real toughie, I'd love to hear Blind Blake's "A New Style of Lovin'" cleaned up. It is the most whuped tune I've ever tried to learn the guitar part of, especially the first sung verse.

BTW I love what you've done. I don't especially like the noisy tracks, terrible to listen to! As a test, I played your cleaned up Pattons to a couple of friends who won't listen to old blues records for exactly this reason. They were very impressed and even let me play the second one, which they always stop me from doin' (no more of that old s**t).

Alex

Bed Bug Bill · « **Reply #33 on:** March 03, 2012, 04:59:13 AM »

hi,
new member.just joined,so may be late for this thread.
I think the clean up of these patton tracks are superb.
Regardless of the ease or availability of the software,you definately have the ear.so,thanks very much for posting these.
I am not very clever with computers but will investigate this software and try some stuff.
Once owned two patton 78's,when your way gets dark on 78 through headphones used to sound as he was in the room with me.
Patton was/is the ultimate pinnicle of country blues in my mind,to me,
no one ever came close,so these were very enjoyable for me to hear.
If you ever get the time,I would love to hear what you could do to
Circle round the moon ,it would be amazing to hear whats actually going on.
Thanks again.keep going.

Annette · « **Reply #34 on:** March 26, 2012, 11:14:53 AM »

I always liked that saying:

"The remastering is great - Charley Patton has never been so clearly incomprehensible before"

Annette

Rivers · « **Reply #35 on:** March 26, 2012, 07:13:16 PM »

Annette, do you know where that quote comes from? It deserves to be added to the quote oracle.

Annette · « **Reply #36 on:** March 27, 2012, 08:49:59 AM »

I think it was from Juke Blues or Blues & Rhythm - but don't have any mags any more.

Annette

News:

Member Info

Quick Menu

Author Topic: I've remastered a few Charlie Patton tracks. I'd appreciate some input. (Read 5523 times)