Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?

[Clark Johnsen <clarkjohnsen@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> Hi Clark:
>
> Yeah, but the problem is a lot of mass-market 78's were poorly
> manufactured, on crappy material or off-center, and most you'd find today at
> a reasonable price haven't lived a gentle life. That said, where I've had
> the opportunity to play either well-preserved vinyl 78's or well-preserved
> laquers, I've been very surprised at the high degree of "transfer" through
> the medium -- ie the medium was maintaining a surprising degree of fidelity
> to the source.


My very point!


> Laquer disks are particularly impressive.


So are many shellaquers.


> I have some that would best narrow-track tape recordings (but definitely
> not full-track tape on a proper professional deck). And, for content that
> doesn't require a very quiet background for enjoyment, such as spoken word
> content or even some jazz, even mass-media 78's could do a very good job
> with a good recording.
>
> Also, many 78 transfers made for CD sets are awful.


No kidding.


> People do seem to lop off the bass --


Yes... of all things!

I suspect that transferists/restorationists without a bass-capable system
(that's most of them) have no idea what's on there.


> these records had plenty of low end, it was the TOP end where they had no
> musical content. Yet people roll off the bass (maybe because they have
> rumble-plagued playback systems) and crank up the EQ on the upper midrange,
> which just accentuates the surface noise and unnatural resonances from the
> original recording devices. Then you apply an overly aggressive treatment
> with CEDAR


Hush! That word ist verboten.


> or whatever else and you get ... crap.


Yep.

clark

>
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
>