Re: [ARSCLIST] Pristine Audio (?!)

[Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The more transfer work I do, the more I'm convinced that the vast lion's share of attention and 
effort must be paid in the analog domain. Get it right there and you will need few digi-tools and 
digi-tricks. It's the age-old reality of garbage in = garbage out, and there are no digital tools 
that trump reality.

The other reality is that computers are dumber than any human. The "decisions" made in automated 
processes are often harmful to audio quality. So the fewer "judgement calls" left up to software, 
the better the outcome in the hands of a skilled engineer with good ears.

Over-use of automation is usually triggered by laziness, ignorance or unrealistic time/money budget 
expectations, or a combination of all three.

As I see it, the really big plus that digital audio technology brings to the table, after a couple 
of decades of steady improvement against the backdrop of much hype and over-promise, is that we now 
have many options, ranging from simple to vastly complex and affordable to massively expensive, that 
get us very near if not at the nirvana of input=output. No previous technology came anywhere as 
close, each impressing numerous distortions and inaccuracies (some considered very euphonic by some, 
but let's call them what they are -- distortions and inaccuracies). But, as good as it is, the 
present technology still requires knowledge, skill and taste on the part of its users.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marcos Sueiro Bal" <mls2137@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 8:37 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Pristine Audio (?!)


> Tom & Doug,
>
> A-men.
>
> It amazes me how professional mastering engineers can be lured into over-processing. A couple of 
> years ago I consulted for a major box-set re-issue and the original mastering (from a reputable 
> house) on Cedar was full of digi-swish. I believe that they had just gotten the system and were a 
> little knob-happy (something that I admit to be susceptible of when using a new piece of gear). I 
> convinced them to back off a bit (although, alas, they never fixed the pitch drift).
>
> As these tools become more commonplace and we learn to use them, we can only hope that these 
> artifacts will be a thing of the past.
>
> Marcos
>
> Doug Pomeroy wrote:
> > > Date:    Mon, 3 Dec 2007 06:02:58 -0500
> > > From:    Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: Re: Pristine Audio (?!)
> > >
> > > That sample track of Robert Johnson is full of digital hash in the treble, especially around the
> > > slide guitar but also the upper notes of the voice. It sounds very bad, to my ears. I'll take 
> > > the
> > > record surface noise in the early 90's Sony reissue set over the digital hash any day. One man's
> > > opinion ...
> > >
> > > -- Tom Fine
> >
> > Indeed.  And the 5 minute MP3 file which contains excerpts from 8 tracks is even worse,
> > with painfully obvious misrepresentation of the timbre of the voice and guitar.  It's is not
> > the result of MP3 compression, but an artifact of heavy-handed noise removal processing.
> > How could any engineer, who claims to work with classical music, possibly accept such
> > degraded audio?
> >
> > More emperor's new clothes.
> >
> > Doug Pomeroy
> > POMEROY AUDIO
> > Audio Restoration & Mastering Services
> > Transfers of metal masters, lacquers,
> > shellac and vinyl discs & tapes.