[ARSCLIST] Pristine's rework of Robert Johnson

[rodbrown <rodbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Folks,

Regarding the sample track of Robert Johnson's "Ramblin' On My Mind" 
on the Pristine Classical website, I listened to it several days ago 
when it was first brought to our attention. I liked it well enough. I 
didn't take time that day to compare it with other versions I had on 
hand, but it seemed to me the XR remastered version sounded clearer 
and truer, overall a bit closer to "hi-fi", than the reissues I'd 
heard in the past. I was well aware of the digital hash, but I didn't 
consider it a deal-breaker necessarily.

I love doing freelance audio restoration of older audio sources, 
usually using Audition or Sound Forge. I look forward to being able 
to afford better software some sweet day. Meanwhile, I apply my noise 
reduction tools conservatively. I'm 54, and old enough to find that 
shellac noise sometimes offers me pleasantly nostalgic feelings. I 
don't feel a need to remove it all. I've been doing this for over ten 
years now, and have contributed noise-reduction work to a 
well-regarded local re-issue label.

In doing audio restoration, one will often be faced with trade-offs. 
For example, I can have less background noise and an arguably better 
overall sound on a given recording, if I can live with some slight 
artifacts. That quandary is more likely to arise when the source 
recording supplied is in pretty bad shape. In such a case, 
particularly where the client is not a highly sensitive audiophile, 
it can be tempting to go with the clearer version, and accept slight 
evidence of digital processing as a reasonable price to pay.

Although it hasn't come to this yet, I can imagine offering a client 
two finished products, at negligible cost beyond that quoted for one. 
They would get both an artifact-free, noisier version, and a 
generally quieter one that includes transient digital flaws.

I can also foresee doing the same when restoring recordings from my 
own collection. When I'm feeling more ethically strict, or simply 
more nostalgic, I might choose the noisier file. On a more 
forward-looking day, or perhaps when playing music in the car, I 
might choose the quieter copy that has a few artifacts.

The point being,  sometimes the price one has to pay to hear a 
significantly quieter/clearer restoration of an old audio source is 
exorbitant in terms of artifacts, and sometimes it is reasonably 
payable.

What I liked about the XR "remastering" of Robert Johnson was that he 
sounded closer and more real, less distant in both time and location. 
I suppose some slight reverb was added. At first I wondered if this 
was an exciting revelation of real echo existing in the original, 
though long obscured by the various limitations of a shellac 
pressing. Having listened a few more times, and comparing this 
version to a near-mint vinyl LP, I'm pretty sure the reverberation I 
hear was added in. I don't believe it's a digital artifact, the other 
possible explanation.

Okay, I've gone on long enough. Just wanted to say a few words in 
defense of this remaster. It's got some nice, live-sounding presence 
and an absence of traditional fog. The added scritch in the high end 
is unfortunate, but I can see how someone might choose to live with 
it, in order to hear Robert Johnson sounding a bit less cloaked by 
the intervening decades.

Best wishes,
Rod Brown