Date:         Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:46:32 +0000
Reply-To:     Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Doug Pomeroy <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Non-RIAA preamp (was: WHY save as WAV's when Mp3's can do???)
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

For years I transferred everything completely flat, and applied bass 
compensation and
high end rolloff in the computer, using the original Waves 10 parametric 
euqalizer.
But, eventually I decided that in most cases there's nothing wrong with 
applying the
bass compensation via the preamp at the time of transfer (nor am I afraid to 
use my
ears to correct what sounds obviously wrong).

I agree, leaving the high end flat does help all noise reduction programs to 
detect disc
surface noise. It also makes the noise easier to see for those of us who 
remove a lot of
it manually with the on-screen pencil.

But is the software eq as good as that provided by an analog preamp? 
Obviously the answer
depends on the quality of the preamp and the software. In my experience, I 
have not found
the software to produce inferior results, and I have a very fine 
custom-built tubed preamp
for comparison.
And I like the accessibility of the software, which allows easy fine-tuning 
of curves, whereas
all the preamps have various fixed settings.

Doug Pomeroy
POMEROY AUDIO
Remastering and Audio Restoration Services
Cobble Hill, Brooklyn, NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>From: Charles Lawson <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List              
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Non-RIAA preamp (was: WHY save as WAV's when Mp3's 
>can do???)
>Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 16:02:28 -0400
>
>Parker Dinkins wrote:
> >Well, then it appears you agree with me. That's how I do it, and I wrote
> >earlier in the exchange
>
>Forgive me if I missed something earlier on.  Based on the responses that
>I do see in the various threads, I apparently do not receive messages from
>this list in chronological order.
>
>The paragraph that I was specifically referencing said:
>
> >Every project is different, and there are appropriate tools for each
> >situation. It's very subjective. However, there's nothing special about
> >needing to de-click a phonograph record.
>
>I read this as meaning that flat transfers weren't really necessary for
>de-clicking.  That is why I responded as I did.  I certainly didn't intend
>any offense to anyone.
>
>Chas.
>
>--
>Charles Lawson <[log in to unmask]>
>Professional Audio for CD, DVD, Broadcast & Internet

_________________________________________________________________
Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now!  
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG