Re: [ARSCLIST] Cedar

[Eric Jacobs <ericj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

You may want to check out the ELP Declicker.  It was
engineered and manufactured by CEDAR for ELP and uses 
the full CEDAR declickle algorithms.  The difference 
is that it doesn't give you access to all the declickle 
algorithm parameters because it's targetted at the 
consumer/listener market rather than for remastering, 
but gives you plenty of control for real-time listening 
purposes.  It's simple to operate and the AD and DA 
converters are very high quality for good sound.

The ELP Declicker may be just the tool for doing
real-time declicking of your radio program material.

Eric Jacobs

The Audio Archive
tel: 408.221.2128
fax: 408.549.9867
mailto:EricJ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Dismuke
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 7:08 AM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cedar


--- Graham Newton <gn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


> 
> I have the CEDAR Cambridge system which is their
> flagship system and use its 
> processes on a daily basis.  Unless you are doing
> noise reduction processing 
> almost daily and have a lot of experience with it,
> there are many very subtle 
> aspects that you will completely miss. 

This brings up questions I have had about CEDAR
assuming that I would ever be able to cough up enough
money to acquire one.

I am most emphatically NOT an audio engineer or even
an audiophile.  I present vintage recordings on my
Internet radio station and elsewhere on the Internet
so I have a need to be able to get them to sound as
good as I can.  And many of my records are in very
much less than E condition.

Beyond the limitations of my technical skills and my
knowledge of audio in general from a highly technical
standpoint, another huge limitation I have is time. 
Even if I had the skills and desire, I simply do not
have the free time to lavish large amounts of
attention in order to make a single given recording
sound its absolute possible best.  For me, the trade
off between quality and quantity is a big factor. 
Plus I am not selling my stuff for CD reissues and
such - I basically give it away for free.

That's my context.  So here are my questions about
CEDAR.

My understanding is the Duo operates in "real time." 
Does that mean I could actually use it in a "live"
setting and use it to spin 78 rpms on a radio
broadcast and get decent results?   What sort of
learning curve is there for an intelligent novice to
be able to get merely satisfactory or better results? 

If the same novice had Cambridge, could he get decent
results - or does its expanded capabilities actually
work to his disadvantage?  My guess is Cambridge would
not be able to be used for live broadcasts - is that
correct? 

Finally, I would be very interested if someone who had
knowledge with CEDAR and who has a spare moment to do
so could listen to the following 128 kpbs mp3s of
records in various conditions processed using my
current equipment and let me know to what degree I
could get better results from CEDAR so I have an idea
whether or not it would be worth such a large
investment.

What I am currently using is a combination of KAB's
Souvenir VSP real time audio restoration for my
transfers plus a very light application of noise
reduction with DCart 6. (My results with DCart alone
without the Souvenir VSP have been on balance pretty
horrid).  All of the recordings here were transferred
with a 3.3 TE styli. 

Here is what I just won on the most recent Nauck
auction.  The record is listed in E minus condition -
but since it has some silent and quite passages, there
is still some surface noise to it.  I am sure someone
who is skilled with CEDAR could get better results
with the very small amount of noise that remains - but
could someone such as myself?  To me, the results
sound good - but then again my ear is not especially
tranined.  The amount of time I spent on this one was
approximiately two minutes over what it took to
transfer the recording. 

http://www.radiodismuke.com/arsclist/dismukeone.mp3
(Marek Weber Orch - Potpourri of Popular Songs from
UFA Films Part 1)

Here is another recording in approximately E condition
but which does not have any really quite passages and
thus much less surface noise - and I probably could
have gotten away with using heavier noise reduction
than I did on it. Again, I perhaps spent two minutes
on this beyond the time it took to transfer.  Would
CEDAR be able to give me improvement enough to justify
the cost?
http://www.radiodismuke.com/arsclist/dismuketwo.mp3
(Johnny Hamp Orch - I Can't Write The Words)

Here is a record that is in merely average condition
and was fairly noisy.  I have no doubt that a pro on
CEDAR oould get much better results.  But could a
novice such as myself?  Again, I spent perhaps two
minutes on this beyond the time it took to transfer. 
Could I get away with the same time investment with
CEDAR - and, if so, for how much improvement:

http://www.radiodismuke.com/arsclist/dismukethree.mp3
(Lou Gold Orch - Smile While The Clouds Are Gray"

Finally, here is a record that was in almost trashed
out condition - and I had to spend perhaps 15 or 20
minutes struggling to get it to sound to the degree as
I managed to get it.  Could CEDAR have worked some
sort of miracle on a record such as this - and could a
novice such as myself have a chance of getting better
results with a similar or smaller time investment? 

http://www.radiodismuke.com/arsclist/dismukefour.mp3
(Fred Gardner's Texas University Serenaders - Loveless
Love)

The Souvenir VSP and the software combined cost me
well under $1,000 - so cost difference is definitely a
factor that must be weighed.