Re: [ARSCLIST] Pristine's rework of Robert Johnson

[Ryan Jurison <du_box@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I generally stick to reading most of the discussions on this list, but this brought up some interesting thoughts for me. Now, it should be noted that I have extremely limited experience with audio engineering, and absolutely no professional experience, so I come from the vantage point of someone who, at this time, merely enjoys listening to vintage records, primarily through CD reissues. I have, however, recently begun collecting 78's, but am still quite new to that.
 
With that preface in mind, I do think that having very clean and more modern sounding versions of these old records is sort of a mixed blessing. For all the increased clarity, and ability to pick up subtleties that might have been previously obscured by the limitations of records that are 70 + years old, there will be a loss of a certain charm. I'm 24, so I have no nostalgic feelings about "shellac noise," having rarely and only recently heard it in person, but even on the CD reissues, the surface noise transferred over retains an approximation of fact, for me... you're listening to an old record on a modern CD, but it still sounds like an old record! 
 
Particularly when it comes to guys like Robert Johnson, Blind Willie Johnson, Charley Patton, and many other great bluesmen and women, the records wouldn't sound "right" all perfectly cleaned up, in my opinion. While I can appreciate the academic and otherwise useful nature of a perfect and blemish-free sound, at what point does it liken to trying to photograph a child's finger paintings with a high-definition camera? 
Just my humble cent-and-a-half.
 
-Ryan



> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:19:31 -0800> From: rodbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Pristine's rework of Robert Johnson> To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > 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
gs 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
_________________________________________________________________
i’m is proud to present Cause Effect, a series about real people making a difference.
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text_Cause_Effect