[Table of Contents]

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

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

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

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