But it is possible to "clean up" old wax cylinders and old recordings from the 1930 so that they sound, while not modern, definitely 1000% better than they used to. So obviously there are technicians, and equipment that are able to remove a lot of noise from these old recordings. I have heard these recordings in the original and heard the cleaned up versions and yes you can distinguish the different instruments and MOST of the noise is gone
i hate to tell you...but the majority of that probably wasn't digital post processing. there are things you can do during playback of old formats to reduce the amount of noise.
the other thing you have to consider is the type of noise on a wax cylinder vs the type of noise in your files. Yours isn't noise..it's more like distortion, distortion that IF SOMEONE HADN'T OF DONE NR TO BEGIN WITH, it MIGHT be able to be removed.
the programs the pros use? here's a small partial list i can remember: Pro-Tools, Sound Forge, Audition, DARTPro, DC7, other custom created software, Antres plugins, izotope plugins, Sony Suite plugins....the list goes on. I've got MUCH of the same stuff the pros use. So don't go thinking the pros have some magical stuff...beucase they don't. They just know how to use it, and even they would say your files are unfixable.
Piano Nick is right, he's EXACTLY right, I've been trying to say something similar to that for a while. you CANNOT seperate elements of a waveform, yes, it's digital, but it's STILL Based off an analog format. it's much in the same way you can't just click on a person in a photo and remove them, sure, you CAN, but what about the photo you took them out of....there's no background....there's no information from where they were standing on what's behind them.
audio is the same way...the programs don't know how to remove things...there's no way looking at the hex you'll magically go "oh, look, a saxophone", all you're going to see are a bunch of samples that are going to make up a squiggly line that when turned into analog represents the movement of a speaker cone to produce sound..ok...so really, i cannot even begin to imagine someone who only has a degree in programming will be able to manipulate those samples because you know how to make that speaker vibrate the right way...you don't. sure, you might know a speaker vibrating 1000 times a sec makes a 1khz tone, but what about if you throw some noise into it? then you've got your speaker moving 1000 times a second and THEN noise that's being slightly modulated like that.
you said yourself you don't know how to read a waveform...that right there disqualifies you from being able to do anything with raw sample data in hex...plain and simple. you HAVE to know one to know the other, seriously...looking at a connect the dots without the dots connected doesn't really help even if you know WHAT it is.
are you getting it, is it getting ANY clearer why your idea of using hex is just so stupid it's GUARNTEED to be complete utter fail?
do you have any idea why i've thus far discounted ANYTHING you've put into the forum as serious?
do you get WHY i'm being such a prick?
you apparently DO NOT understand the basics of audio, and untill you do, you're not going to be able to do anything....WORKING IN HEX WILL TELL YOU NOTHING.
Seriously...anyone who DOESN'T have to sit here and yell like that but still continues to do it MUST know something, yet you think you know more. You don't. I'm sure everyone is agreeing with me that your idea is completely bonkers. I've seen proper Guiness pours with a better head on 'em.
the point is...give it up. it'd be easier for you to find another source (or better yet, go out and actually purchase the CDs)