[Table of Contents]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Graham Newton <gn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> CEDAR is a group of tools for Audio-Restoration, and like any kind of tool
> its components can be mis-used.


> The problem is that ham-handed people think they can use a tool like CEDAR
> right out of the box without taking the time to learn each component of it
> and understand what it will do and most of all, when to stop before you
> over-do it!


> I just spent a few weeks learning and trying CEDAR's NR-4 process and was
> amazed at what I could do with it on some 1928 Victor recordings.

A great year!

> It is only ONE of a bunch of processes that, when applied together, results
> in a restoration that comes as close to what you would have heard if you
> could have stood in the studio on the day the recording was made, allowing
> for the technology of the day...

Waitaminnit! I've never heard a process that gets *that* close. In fact
I question *any* process in which the "restoration" counts for more than, or
claims to get any better than, the "transfer". My own work on the latter
aspect has brought numerous people around to the view that, for some
instruments anyway, 78s are as good as recording ever got. No "restoration"
involved! And for sure, no processing.

Nor has any CD yet brought any of us to that point.

But I'm open to the idea!

> and after all, isn't that what we want to achieve?

You got that right!


> ... Graham Newton
> --
> Audio Restoration by Graham Newton, http://www.audio-restoration.com
> World class professional services applied to tape or phonograph records for
> consumers and re-releases, featuring CEDAR's CAMBRIDGE processes.

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]