Date:         Thu, 24 Nov 2005 05:41:29 -0500
Reply-To:     Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: 78rpm EQ and postprocessing
Comments: To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

I agree with Steven on this very much! Process #1 is trying to pull from
thin air something that does not exist (for example, the treble and bass
that's not on a 78 or cylinder), as well as remove something that -- as far
as I have heard -- cannot be aggressively removed without taking some
program content. Thus creating a larger "need" to pull from thin air that
which does not exits. Bad cycle! Process #2, usually used too aggressively,
tries to make content sound like what it's not and generally removes some
elements of the content in the process. If used very conservatively, Process
#2 can be successful, particularly with not-so-complex program content such
as old radio shows. As long as the transients and voice-timbre frequencies
are not messed up, a lot of other stuff can be removed with good audibility.
However, if taken too far, you end up with noise envelopes around each burst
of voice. For good examples of taking this too far, listen to some recent
Radio Spirits releases (which usually start with very bad recordings in very
bad condition -- so they should spend their time and $$ seeking good source
material instead of trying to over-fix the unfixable).

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven C. Barr" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] 78rpm EQ and postprocessing


> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Karl Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
> > I don't mean to split hairs, but, ok, I will split some hairs.  I see a
> > difference between the recording and the artist.
> > It seems to me that the ultimate reverence for the artist was in the
hands
> of
> > the original recording engineer. Yes, I do believe we have a duty
> > to represent that work as honestly as possible. We do the best we can,
and
> > we do what we think is "right."
> > For me, the very process of playback is subjective. As it becomes
> > electricity, it becomes electronic music.
> > I guess we can try for an "absolute" when it comes to transfers, but it
> > seems to me to do so is problematic. For me, both flat transfers and
> > restoration are "memorex" and involve subjectivity. For me, those
> > aesthetic decisions are difficult and I have been known to produce as
many
> > as 30 different "masters" before I am pleased with one of them. On
> > occasion I have returned to something a year later and, as a test for
> > myself, I redo the entire process. It never sounds the same as what
> > pleased me the first time I worked on it. I am reminded of Ward Marston
> > revisiting Caruso...and, many musicians who revisit repertoire producing
a
> > different interpretation.
> > And, on the other hand, when you are looking for a "good review" honesty
> > is not always the best policy. I can elaborate if needed...but I sense
> > many of you will understand my comment.
> >
> Well, when processing pre-digital recordings, particulary those which
> were recorded acoustically, there are at least three possible goals:
>
> 1) An attempt to recreate, insofar as possible, the actual performace
> which was recorded. This requires the removal of all noise added during
> the recording process (shellac noise, vinyl noise, tape noise, usw.) as
> well as all noise added by the deterioration of the recording through
> the wear and tear of use and storage...along with correcting for any
> frequencies lost by older recording technologies. Of course, this has
> to be a subjective estimate of what would have been heard, since there
> is no ideal with which to compare the results...
>
> 2) An attempt to recreate the actual content of the recording were it
> possible to reproduce it perfectly and minus any inherent noise. That
> is, there is no attempt to add the missing bass to acoustic recordings,
> for example...but noise due to the deterioration of the recording as
> well as any inherent in the type of record must be removed. This is,
> of course, also subjective, but to a lesser extent...
>
> 3) An attempt to, as nearly as possible, the sound of the recording
> itself...not what it SHOULD have sounded like with current technology,
> or even what it WOULD have sounded like were it played back perfectly.
> This means that the recording should be cleaned to the extent
> possible, and any sonic flaws due to damage corrected for...but,
> for example, if the source is a 78, the result should sound like
> a 78 being played (but not a dirty, cracked, etc. 78!).
>
> Personally, I favour #3...but a lot of reissues tend toward #2,
> and a few attempt #1...
>
> Steven C. Barr