Re: [ARSCLIST] Plangent Processes and speed correction

[Steven Smolian <smolians@xxxxxxxxx>]

The idea of tracking hum was among a group of improvements awaiting
inplementatiuon I presented at a 1990 (I think) Audio Engineering Society
plenary session so you can be sure I believe in it as a concept..  I have a
copy of the tape.

We are preserving the audio cultural heritage imperfectly, restoring audio
that could, with assistance from this program, be much improved.  Instead,
if the media lasts long enough, it will have to be done again when this or a
similar program are widely and inexpensively available.

I'm sure the developers have made a substantial invenstement in their
programs.

This, it seems to me, is a perfect product to be marketed cheaply,
subsidized by an appropriate entity by someone at the Bill Gates level.

I sugest creating a presentation with this goal would be an appropriate
function of ARSC in conjunction with the Plangent folks.

I know they are working with 78s right now but the lack of an example makes
me uneasy- do discs introduce another layer of technical problems when heard
under more detailed listening conditions than the conference presentation
allowed?  I shouldn't think so but until one is posted, let's not call Mr.
Gates just yet.

Steve Smolian




----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard L. Hess" <ArcLists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Plangent Processes and speed correction


> Steve,
>
> Plangent Processes and Antares are two different animals. One looks
> at non-program artifacts in the source, the other looks at program.
>
> Plangent has some impressive demonstrations - they can almost totally
> remove dubber flutter. I think I heard things at the ARSC conference
> that did not come off magnetic media, and Jamie talked about looking
> for and locking onto a wide range of "timebase"-type signals in a
> recording.
>
> Sure you want to own it, but Jamie needs to recoup a sizeable
> investment. Look at the prices of the Algorithmix pro plugins and the
> Cedar processes. I can tell you that the incremental difference on
> noise reduction between the mid-range Algorithmix Sound Laundry and
> the Pro is about the price ratio.
>
> My band organ client was blown away with the new noise reduction (he
> likes to hear the music, not the machine).
>
> Anyway, if you lock onto the music, doesn't that destroy the music
> unless there is a low-pass filter?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
> At 08:16 PM 7/23/2005, you wrote:
> > I just looked at their web site.
> >
> > Their examples are all from tape or cylinders, i.e., constant speed.  I'm
> > interested in 78s.
> >
> > This is a brureau only.  I spoke with them at the ARSC meeting.  Cost is
> > about $ 3,000 per hour.  Perhaps this has changed.
> >
> > Speaking for myself, though I expect it reflects the attitude of many on
> > this particular list, I want to own the thing, preferbly as a plug-in.
> >
> > This may not be possible as yet.  The process may not be streamlined
> > enough
> > to simplify it sufficently to be marketed.
> >
> > The Antares Auto-Tune plug-in is $ 320 and up, PC and Mac.  It seem to
> > work
> > with lead instruents and sung vocals. I've not tried it.
> >
> > Steve Smolian
>
> Richard L. Hess                           email: richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Vignettes
> Media                           web:   http://www.richardhess.com/tape/
> Aurora, Ontario, Canada             (905) 713 6733     1-877-TAPE-FIX
> Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.4/57 - Release Date: 7/22/2005