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

[Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Not when it's overused and sucks what little life is left out of the sound. With all digital NR, 
it's a very fine line between slightly improving clarity and sucking the air, space and depth out of 
the sound. My own bias is always toward less but I've made and heard others' examples of judicious 
use of digi-tools where audibility and clarity are improved. Rare with well-recorded full-range 
music; the trained ear seems to prefer some hiss or surface noise with the entire pallet of music as 
opposed to a quieter background with some colors muted.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Parker Dinkins" <parker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cedar, was: Aren't recordings original sources?


> Tom Fine wrote:
>
> > Also, many 78 transfers made for CD sets are awful. People do seem to lop off
> > the bass -- 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 or whatever else and you get ... crap.
>
> Seems like CEDAR would be just what is required after all that torture.
>
> --
> Parker Dinkins
> CD Mastering + Audio Restoration
> http://masterdigital.com