[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Pristine's rework of Robert Johnson
Hi Ryan:
The fool's errand by tin-eared computer jockeys posing as audio engineers is to try and convert
these old disks to "having very clean and more modern sound." It can't be done. When you try you get
all sorts of junk artifacts like are heard on that Robert Johnson sample. I would question the
qualifications of an audio "professional" who finds that work acceptable and I certainly would never
trust their ears or taste on any project with which I was involved. Some casual listeners -- I would
suggest people with damaged hearing -- may find it strangely pleasing.
A better approach was taken for the CBS/Sony reissue of the complete Robert Johnson, which became a
surprise heavy-seller in the early 1990's. They tracked down as good sources as existed (as I
understand it, few if any metal parts of these recordings exist anymore), cleaned them properly and
played them back on the right equipment. And they used minimal digi-tools like CEDAR so the life
isn't sucked out of them. The "penalty" for being more musical and thus technically conservative is
a good dose of surface noise. However, the surface noise is a consistent pattern in the background,
so the brain ignores it. Johnson's voice and guitar stand out above the din and are not corrupted
and further distorted by digi-hash at the most annoying frequencies. The digi-hash in the
over-processed sample is akin to fingernails on a blackboard and of an inconsistent pattern so it
jumps right out and distracts the brain.
The key knowledge to transfer work and remastering old source material, in my opinion, is to
understand the limits of the source medium and try to maximize its sonic good points and minimize
its sonic problems. This does not mean try to make something of limited frequency range and limited
fidelity sound like a "modern" recording. With 78's, I will once more paraphrase my friend and
mentor Art Shifrin -- start with the best source material available, clean it properly, play it back
properly (speed, stylus, EQ), transfer it cleanly in a non-complicated transfer chain, manually
"write out" the worst pops and ticks and ... do little else!
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Jurison" <du_box@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Pristine's rework of Robert Johnson
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 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
_________________________________________________________________
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